Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:110816 Court No. - 75 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 24199 of 2025 Applicant :- Chhatar Singh Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Akhilesh Kumar Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Vikas Budhwar,J. 1. Heard Sri Akhilesh Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the applicants and Sri Vikas Sharma, learned State Law Officer for the State. 2. This is an application under Section 528 of BNSS preferred by the applicant for quashing the entire proceeding of the Complaint Case No.690 of 2024 (Dharmveer Singh versus Chhatar Singh), under Section 138 N.I. Act, Police Station Noorpur, District Bijnor, pending in the court of the learned Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division)- IInd, District Bijnor and the Impugned Summoning Order dated 08.02.2024 passed by the court of the learned Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division)/Judicial Magistrate Court No.5, District Bijnor in Complaint Case No.690 of 2024 (Dharmveer Singh versus Chhatar Singh), under Section 138 N.I. Act, Police Station Noorpur, District Bijnor, pending in the court of the learned Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division)- IInd, District Bijnor. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that a complaint was lodged by O.P. No.2 on 01.01.2024 against the applicant with an allegation that with respect to execution of a conveyance deed, when the same could not materialized, the amount was to be returned so the applicant had drawn a cheque no.203074 dated 15.09.2023 of Rs.9,50,000/- which on deposit in the bank on 09.11.2023, stood dishonoured on 10.11.2023, statutory demand notice was issued on 29.11.2023 and thereafter complaint was lodged. Summoning order came to be passed on 08.02.2024 summoning the applicant under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the cheque in question stood lost and the complaint was lodged on 02.08.2023. Thus the cheque stood misutilized. Further submission is that the story so sought to be propounded in the complaint is unbelievable, particularly when the said transaction stated to have been made in cash, which is not acceptable. 4. Learned State Law Officer has opposed the application while contending that once the cheque stood drawn and it was dishonoured, then the presumption of Section 139 of N.I. Act would be there. 5. I have heard the submissions so made across the Bar and perused the records carefully. 6. Apparently, the cheque stood drawn, which was dishonoured. The question as to whether it was lost or not is an issue, which is not to be adjudicated at the stage of summoning. It is a matter of defence, which would need consideration when the trial commences. Further once the cheque has been drawn and it is dishonoured, the presumption of Section 139 of N.I. Act is there in favour of holder of the cheque. 7. Accordingly interference declined. The application stands disposed of granting liberty to applicant to contest the trial and take all legal and factual grounds. Order Date :- 11.7.2025 N.S.Rathour (Vikas Budhwar, J) Digitally signed by :- NIPENDRA SINGH RATHOUR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad