Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:125164 Court No. - 75 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 27003 of 2025 Applicant :- Shivam Kumar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and another Counsel for Applicant :- Omvir Singh Rajpoot Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Vikas Budhwar,J. 1. Heard Sri Omvir Singh Rajpoot, learned counsel for the applicant as well as Sri Motilal, learned AGA for the State. 2. This application u/s 528 of BNSS has been preferred to quash the entire criminal proceedings against the applicant in pursuance of the summoning order dated 27/01/2020, passed by Presiding Officer, Additional Court, Mathura, in Complaint Case No. 4555/2019, Smt. Prakashi Devi V/S Shivam Kumar, U/S- 138 of N.I. Act, P/S- Highway, District- Mathura, pending before the Presiding Officer, Additional Court, Mathura. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that a complaint was lodged by the opposite party no. 2 on 11.10.2019 against the applicant under Section 138 of the NI Act with an allegation that the applicant happen to be the tenant of the opposite party no. 2 and with respect to purchase of certain material, an amount of Rs. 1,02,000/- came to be advanced by the opposite party no. 2 to the applicant and thereafter, in respect to discharge of a liability two cheques bearing no. 508861, 508858 for an amount of Rs. 90,000/- and 12,000/- came to be drawn which on presentation in the bank came to be dishonored on 31.08.2019, a statutory demand notice is stated to have been sent on 09.09.2019 which came to be served upon the applicant on 25.09.2019 and the complaint was lodged on 11.10.2019 and thereafter the applicant came to be summoned on 27.01.2020. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that there is no legal debt or liability so as to invoke the provisions of Section 138 of NI Act for the simple reason that the applicant herein as per the complaint happens to be the tenant and it is quite implorable and unbelievable that the landlord would give financial assistance for purchase of material. Further submission is that the signed cheques were with the opposite party no. 2 as a security and with respect to one cheque, the same was mis-utilized and a third person was planted and a complaint case was preferred and when the applicant came to be summoned then the Application u/s 482 No. 24035 of 2023 was preferred in which on 11.07.2023 interim order is granted. He submits that with respect to the present two cheques which are subject matter in question already a first information report stood lodged on 05.05.2023 under Section 471, 468, 467, 406 IPC bearing no. 0185. He submits that even otherwise there is no question of any debt or liability in this regard. 4. Learned AGA, on the other hand, submits that once the cheque stood drawn and it was dishonored then the presumption under Section 139 of the NI Act would be there. 5. I have heard the submission so made across the bar and perused the record carefully. 6. The sole question which arises for determination is the extent of judicial intervention at this stage in the present proceedings. Apparently, as per the complaint, two cheques stood drawn which were dishonored followed by a statutory demand notice and the complaint. On a pointed query being raised to the learned counsel for the applicant as to whether there is any infraction of any of the provisions, the answer is negative. The entire thrust of the argument of the learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant being a tenant was not supposed to and the opposite party no. 2 by no stretch of imagination could have given financial assistance. 7. In the opinion of the Court, the said argument at best is a defence, consideration whereof would arise when the trial commences. Nonetheless, the objection of the applicant that the said cheque was by way of security and, thus, it does not answer the description of debt and liability is concerned, the same is not convincible particularly when the same is subject matter of trial as held in M/s Womb Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. vs Vijay Ahuja 2022 (18) SCC 631 and in Sunil Todi vs. the State of Gujarat 2022 (16) SCC 762. 8. Apart from this, the reliance so placed upon the opposite party no. 2 upon the interim protection accorded in respect to the third cheuqe, the same would not be of any aid or assistance particularly in the wake of the fact that the cheque stood dishonored. As regards, the FIR is concerned, the same stood lodged on 05.05.2023 much after the summoning order. Moreover, the presumption under Section 139 of the NI Act would already there. 9. Accordingly, interference declined, application stands disposed of leaving it open for the applicant to raise all legal and factual issues before the court below. Order Date :- 29.7.2025 Rajesh Digitally signed by :- RAJESH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Digitally signed by :- RAJESH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad