Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:113366 Court No. - 75 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 24476 of 2025 Applicant :- Prahlad Yadav Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Ashish Kumar Pandey,Navin Singh,Ranjana Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Vikas Budhwar,J. 1. Heard Sri Ashish Kumar Pandey learned counsel for the applicant and Sri J.B. Singh learned AGA for the State. 2. This is an application filed under Section 528 of the B.N.S.S. for quashing the entire proceeding as well as summoning order dated 06.01.2021 in Complaint Case No. 223 of 2021 (Siddharth Shankar Srivastav Vs. Prahlad Yadav), under section 138 of N.I. Act, Police Station Kotwali, District Azamgarh, pending in the court of civil Judge (J.D) / Judicial Magistrate, court no-19, Azamgarh. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that a complaint stood lodged by the opposite party no.2 against the applicant on 9.2.2019 with an allegation that the opposite party no.2. was a counsel, who was pursuing the proceedings, on behalf of the applicant with respect to motor vehicle accident case and the cheque stood drawn by the applicant with an assurance that as soon as motor vehicle accident case stands decided in favour of the applicant, the cheque would be used for the purposes of making of the payment (remuneration/fees). 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the said case stood decided on 27.8.2016 and thereafter the opposite party no.2 as per the assurance and the understanding had got the cheque submitted in the bank for encashment which stood dishonoured on 19.10.2019, a statutory demand notice was issued on 2.11.2019 followed by the complaint under Section 138 of the N.I. Act and the applicant came to be summoned on 6.1.2021. He further submits that the fraud has been played upon the applicant particularly when the opposite party no.2 was never the counsel of the applicant as there was some other counsel and he seeks to invite attention towards the vakalatnama, he submits that the applicant was not given any knowledge about the passing of the order allowing the motor vehicle accident case, however, the blank cheque was obtained by the opposite party no.2 just for the purposes of the remittance of the motor vehicles amount in the bank account as the blank signed cheque who would furnish the details about the bank etc. He also submits that the applicant is rustic and he is not even conversant with the banking norms and thus on his innocence and ignorance had given a signed cheque. He next submits that no debt or liability under Section 138 of the N.I. Act stands accrued so as to invoke penal consequences. 5. Learned AGA on the other hand submits that nothing has been brought on record by the applicant to show that there has been any infraction of Sections 138 and 142 of the N.I.Act and whatever arguments are being sought to be raised they are the matter of defences consideration whereof would arise when the trial commences. 6. I have heard the submissions so made across the bar and perused the record. Apparently, as per the complaint, a cheque stood drawn by the applicant which stood dishonoured followed by a statutory demand notice and summoning of the applicant. The question as to whether the applicant was meted with fraud and the instance of the opposite party no.2 is a question which is a subject matter of trial and no finding is required to be given at the stage of summoning. Importantly, whether the opposite party no.2 was the counsel of the applicant and the cheuqe stood misutilized is a question of fact, no observation is required at this stage. Apparently, the presumption under Section 139 of the N.I. Act would arise when the cheque stood dishonoured in favour of the holder of the cheque. 7. Looking into the oral fact situation, the Court does not find the present case to be a fit case for interference. Interference is declined. The application stands disposed of leaving it open to the applicant to raise all legal and factual issues which are permissible under law before the court below while contesting the proceedings and this Court has no reason to disbelieve that the same shall be considered in correct perspective. Order Date :- 15.7.2025 piyush Digitally signed by :- PIYUSH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad