Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:127661 Court No. - 75 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 27518 of 2025 Applicant :- Chaudhary Bheekam Singh Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Rajesh Sharma Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Vikas Budhwar,J. 1. Heard Sri Rajesh Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Moti Lal, 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 05.03.2025 passed by Presiding Officer, Additional Court, Aligarh, in Complaint Case No. 338 of 2024, (Suneel Sharma Vs. Chaudhary Bheekam Singh), U/S 138 N.I.Act., Police Station- Delhi Gate, District- Aligarh. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that on 22.04.2024, a complaint was lodged by the O.P. No.2 under Section 138 of the N.I. Act against the applicant with an allegation that with respect to discharge of liability, the applicant herein had drawn a cheque bearing number "000003" dated 20.11.2023 of Rs.24,25,000/- which on presentation in the bank was dishonoured on 08.02.2024 with the remark "funds insufficient". Thereafter a statutory demand notice came to be issued on 07.03.2024, which is alleged to have been served upon the applicant on 08.03.2024, thereafter the complaint was preferred on 22.4.2024. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that there is no legal enforceable debt or liability so as to invoke the provisions under Section 138 of N.I. Act for the simple reason that the applicant herein had already lodged a FIR on 31.03.2024 bearing number "0166" under Section 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC against the O.P. No.2, with relation to the misutilization of the said cheque. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that even prior to it there happens to be a complaint, which stands recorded in the G.D. entry on 17.05.2023. 4. Learned A.G.A. on the other hand submits that once the cheque stood drawn, then the presumption under Section 139 of the N.I. Act would be there. 5. Having heard the submissions so made across the Bar, the sole question which arises for determination is the extent of judicial intervention. 6. Apparently, a cheque bearing number "000003" of Rs.24,25,000/- dated 20.11.2023 came to be drawn by the applicant which was dishonoured on 08.02.2024 followed by a statutory demand notice dated 07.03.2024, which came to be served upon the applicant on 08.03.2024, followed by a complaint on 22.04.2024. The question as to whether the cheque was actually lost or not and the factum that the FIR was lodged post issuance of the statutory demand notice dated 07.03.2024, on 31.03.2024, and it is the stand of the applicant that in the FIR there happens to be a G.D. entry dated 17.05.2023 regarding the complaint of the cheque being stolen, these are the subject matter of trial, consideration whereof would be required at the stage when the trial commences. Moreover, presumption under Section 139 of the N.I. Act would always be there in favour of the holder of the cheque. Thus the summoning order cannot be said to be suffering from any infirmity. 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, which are advisable and admissible under law 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