Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:132381 Court No. - 75 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 27128 of 2025 Applicant :- Smt. Rekha Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Dev Raj Singh,Priya Prajapati Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Vikas Budhwar,J. 1. Heard Ms. Priya Prajapati, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Vikas Sharma, learned State Law Officer for the State. 2. This is an application filed under Section 528 of the B.N.S.S. for quashing the summoning order dated 4.7.2024 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, Court no.4 Allahabad in complaint case no. 293 of 2024 (Smt Shajiya Vs Smt Rekha) in 293 as well as to quash the entire proceeding of complaint case no. 293 of 2024 (Smt Shajiya Vs Smt Rekha), Police Station Naini Prayagraj, pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate Court no. 4 Allahabad. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that on 3.4.2024 a complaint under Section 138 of the N.I. Act came to be preferred by the opposite party no.2 with an allegation that the applicant purchased a piece of property from the opposite party no.2 and tendered cheques worth Rs.30,20,000/- and one of the cheque bearing no.196264 dated 1.2.2024 of Rs.5,00,000/- on presentation in the bank stood dishonoured on 2.2.2204 followed by a statutory demand notice dated 28.2.2024 which is stated to have been served upon the applicant on 5.3.2024 and the applicant came to be summoned on 4.7.2024 under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. She has further submitted that the summoning order cannot be sustained for the simple reason that though the cheque stood dishonoured but no legal debt or liability stood attracted so as to invoke the provisions of Section 138 of the N.I. Act particularly when the possession of the property has not been handed over to the applicant. 4. Learned State Law Officer on the other hand submits that once the cheque stood drawn and it was dishonoured that the presumption under Section 139 of the N.I. Act would be there. 5. Having heard the submissions so made across the bar and sole question which arises for determination is the extent of judicial intervention. Apparently, a cheque 196264 dated 1.2.2024 of Rs.5,00,000/- stood drawn which was dishonoured on 2.2.2024, statutory demand notice was issued on 28.2.2024 which came to be served upon the applicant on 5.3.2024 followed by a complaint. In absence of any procedural irregularity the Court is not required to go into the question of defence which is being sought to be raised that the position in pursuance of the sale deed was not handed over that is why on the instructions of the bank, the cheque stood dishonoured. In any view of the matter, presumption under Section 139 of the N.I. Act is always there. 6. Accordingly, interference is declined. The application stands disposed of leaving it open to the applicant to raise all legal and factual issues before the court below while contesting the trial and this Court has no reasons to disbelieve that the same shall be considered in accordance with law. 7. Learned counsel for the applicant at this stage submits that the applicant be granted liberty to prefer an appropriate proceedings for enlargement of bail. 8. In the opinion of the Court, once a bail application is preferred then the same shall be considered with most expeditions strictly as per the law of the land without any delay. Order Date :- 6.8.2025 piyush Digitally signed by :- PIYUSH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad