Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:129985 Court No. - 75 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 25425 of 2025 Applicant :- M/S Durga Trading Company Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Sunil Kumar Tiwari Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Vikas Budhwar,J. 1. Heard Sri Sunil Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel for the applicant 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 order dated 01.05.2025 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Hapur in Complaint case No. 10315 of 2018 under section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Police Station Hapur Dehat, District Hapur, pending in the Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hapur. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that a complaint was lodged by O.P. No.2 against the applicant on 19.05.2018 under Section 138 of N.I. Act with an allegation that with respect to purchase of certain foodgrains, the applicant herein had drawn a cheque dated 24.03.2018 bearing number "426364" of an amount of Rs.21,15,135/-, which on presentation in the bank came to be dishonoured on 06.04.2018 with a remak "fund insufficient" followed by statutory demand notice dated 21.04.2018 and a complaint under Section 138 of N.I. Act on 19.05.2018 and the applicant came to be summoned under Section 138 of N.I. Act on 23.05.2018. Thereafter an application came to be preferred by the applicant on 29.01.2025 for summoning the official of the Mandi Parishad Samiti, Hapur along with Register of Mandi Parishad etc. in order to substantiate that there has been no transaction/ record to show that any amount was taken and payable by O.P. No.2. The said application came to be rejected by the Court of Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hapur. 4. Questioning the order dated 01.05.2025, the present application has been preferred. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the order dated 01.05.2025 rejecting the application cannot be sustained, particularly, when no prejudice has been caused to O.P. No.2. He further submits that in case official of the Mandi Parishad Samiti, Hapur would have come before the Court, then the truth would have been surfaced that there has been no transaction, thus there is no question of any liability so as to enable the applicant to draw any cheque. He further submits that the order in question has not been passed as per the mandate. 6. Learned State Law Officer on the other hand submits that the present application is nothing but a tool which is sought to be deployed by the applicant to delay the proceedings. He further submits that somehow application seeking same prayer came to be rejected on 08.01.2025. 7. Having heard the submissions so made across the Bar, the sole question which arises for determination is the extent of judicial intervention. Apparently, post-dishonour of the cheque, a complaint stood lodged and an application came to be preferred by the applicant for summoning of the official of Mandi Parishad Samiti and the documents. There is a clear cut finding recorded in the order at page-14 that already a self-attested copy of the said document has been provided by the Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti and further there happens to be an order dated 08.01.2025, wherein an application with same relief has shown to have been rejected. On a pointed query being raised to learned counsel for the applicant as to whether said order has been subject matter of challenge, he could not give a satisfactory reply. 8. Looking into the fact that the appeal is already underway and as per the statement so made by learned counsel for the applicant, the case is at the final stage and already an application which was preferred with same relief came to be rejected on 08.01.2025 and there is nothing on record to show that the said order either was set aside. Thus no case is made out, particularly when the complaint is of the year 2018. 9. Considering the submissions raised at the Bar and the statements so sought to be made by them, the application stands disposed of leaving it open for the applicant to contest the matter before the court below while taking all the legal and factual grounds permissible under law and this Court has no reason to disbelieve that the court below consider the same in correct perspective. Order Date :- 4.8.2025 N.S.Rathour (Vikas Budhwar, J) Digitally signed by :- NIPENDRA SINGH RATHOUR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad