Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:127585 Court No. - 75 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 24982 of 2025 Applicant :- Dr Ajeet Singh (Manager City Hospital) Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Rajesh Kumar Pal Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Vikas Budhwar,J. 1. Heard Sri Rajesh Kumar Pal, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Indrajeet Singh Yadav, learned A.G.A. for the State. 2. This is an application under Section 528 of BNSS preferred by the applicant for quashing the summoning order dated 02.03.2024 passed by Judicial Magistrate, Fatehabad, Agra, in Complaint Case No. 2238 of 2023, under Section 138 N.I Act, P.S Fatehabad, District Agra. 3. The case of the applicant is that a complaint stood preferred by the O.P. No.2 through its natural guardian under Section 138 of the N.I. Act against the applicant with an allegation that with respect to a death, which occurred due to negligence of the hospital, a compromise stood entered into between the parties for payment of compensation, however, application with respect to discharge of liability, had drawn a cheque bearing number "396038" dated 05.09.2023, which on presentation in the bank was dishonoured on 11.09.2023, thereafter, the same was again presented, which came to be dishonoured on 18.10.2023, followed by a statutory demand notice dated 31.10.2023, and the complaint and the applicant came to be summoned under Section 138 of N.I. Act on 02.03.2024. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that no legal enforceable debt or liability stands attracted, particularly when the applicant had paid the said amount in cash. 4. Learned A.G.A. on the other hand submits that whatever argument are being raised, they are the matter of trial as presumption under Section 139 of N.I. Act would always be there. 5. I have heard the submissions so made across the Bar and perused the record carefully. 6. Apparently, a cheque stood drawn and as per the allegations contained in the complaint, the same came to be dishonoured followed by a statutory demand notice. The question as to whether the entire payment has been made in cash or not is subject matter of trial, consideration whereof is not to be given into at this stage. 7. Accordingly, interference is declined. Application is disposed of leaving it open to the applicant to contest the trial while taking all legal and factual grounds before the court below and this Court has no reason to disbelieve that the court below shall consider the same in correct perspective. Order Date :- 31.7.2025 N.S.Rathour (Vikas Budhwar, J) Digitally signed by :- NIPENDRA SINGH RATHOUR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad