Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:124358 Court No. - 75 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 26622 of 2025 Applicant :- Smt. Chandrawati Devi Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Deepak Yadav,Vandana Rai Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Vikas Budhwar,J. 1. Heard Sri Sunil Yadav (AoR No. A/S 0791/2016) holding brief of Sri Deepak Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant as well as Sri J.B. Singh, learned AGA for the State/opposite party no.1. 2. This application under Section 528 BNSS has been filed by the applicant to quash the order dated 31.05.2025 and 12.11.2024 passed by Additional Session Judge, Court No. 06, Aligarh as well as order dated 12.11.2024 passed by Additional Judge in case no. 548/2024 (Ajay Kumar Sharma Vs Smt. Chandrawati Devi) under section 138 NI Act, P.S- Gandhipark, District- Aligarh. and pending before Additional Sessions Judge Court No. 06, Aligarh. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that a complaint was lodged by the opposite party no. 2 under Section 138 of the N.I. Act on 07.06.2024 with an allegation that the applicant herein had drawn a cheque bearing No. 341195 dated 25.04.2024 which presentation in the bank, came to be dishonoured on the remarks 'account closed', a statutory demand notice dated 17.05.2024 and the applicant came to be summoned under Section 138 of the N.I. Act on 12.11.2024 against which the applicant preferred a revision which also came to be rejected on 31.05.2025. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant faction had also lodged an FIR against the opposite party no. 2 faction under Sections 323, 354, 504, 506 and 406 IPC and 3(2)(va) SC/ST Act and as a counter-blast, now the present complaint has been lodged. 4. Learned AGA on the other hand submits that whatever arguments, are being raised, are subject matter of trial and presumption under Section 139 of the N.I. Act would be there. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the records. 6. The sole question which arises for determination in the present proceedings is to the extent of judicial intervention. Apparently, the cheques stood drawn, followed by a statutory demand notice and the complaint and the applicant came to be summoned under Section 139 of the N.I. Act. The argument so sought to be raised by the learned counsel for the applicant that present complaint is a counter-blast cannot be gone into at the summoning stage, particularly, it is subject matter of defence which is to be raised and appropriately dealt in the trial. Furthermore, the question whether the account was closed and there was no intention to deceive the opposite party no. 2 is at best a defence, consideration whereof is not required at the stage. Moreover, the presumption under Section 139 of the N.I. Act would be there. 7. Accordingly, the interference is declined, the application stands disposed of. 8. Leaving it open to the applicant to raise legal and factual grounds while contesting the trial. Order Date :- 28.7.2025 A. Prajapati Digitally signed by :- ASHUTOSH KUMAR PRAJAPATI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad