Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:73301 Court No. - 73 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 1484 of 2025 Applicant :- Mahendra Singh Chauhan Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Saurabh Tripathi,Sohit Prakash Sharma Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Vikas Budhwar,J. 1. Heard Sri Sohit Prakash Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant as well as Sri Moti Lal, learned AGA for the State/opposite party no.1. 2. This application under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicant to quash the summoning order dated 5.7.2023 in Case No.24537 of 2023, (Sahab Singh Vs. Mahendra Singh Chauhan), under Section 138 of the N.I. Act, Police Station Highway Mathura, District Mathura pending in the court of learned Additional Civil Judge (J.D.)/Judicial Magistrate, Court No.12 Mathura, District Mathura. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that a complaint was lodged by the opposite party no.2 on 29.3.2023/6.4.2023 against the applicant under Section 138 of the N.I. Act with an allegation that the opposite party no.2 and the applicant happened to be relatives and the applicant had approached the opposite party no.2 for financial assistance to the tune of Rs.6,55,000/- and the applicant thereafter took financial assistance to the tune of Rs.35,00,000/- in total. Assurance was made to repay the amount back, however, in October, 2022 when the complainant approached the applicant then he again made a demand of Rs.5,00,000/- and when the said purpose was being asked then it was apprised to the complainant that the applicant wanted to set up office of the property dealing. The opposite party is alleged to have offered an accommodation which belonged to it for a period of three months and in view thereof a security cheque of bearing no. 98466 of Rs.35,00,000/- and second cheque bearing no.986467 for surety of rented property was drawn and an agreement was also executed on 6.10.2022. The opposite party no.2 on the assurance of the applicant had presented these cheques in the bank which stood dishonoured on 16.2.2023 on account of insufficient funds and again on the assurance it was again presented in the bank on 24.2.2023 which was again dishonoured for insufficient funds, a statutory notice is stated to have been issued on 6.3.2023 which is alleged to have been received by the applicant on 10.3.2023 and the payment was not made, the complaint has been lodged. 4. 4. The applicant has been summoned under Section 138 of the N.I. Act on 5.7.2023. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that first of all there is nothing on record except the bald statement that an amount of Rs.35,00,000/- was advanced to the applicant and the cheques which were meant for security have been misutilized and misused to the benefit of the opposite party no.2 against the applicant while filling up the figures and the words and getting it intentionally dishonoured. He has further submitted that even with relation to eviction proceedings of the tenancy agreement so executed between the parties post order of the corporate authority, the applicant has vacated and thus there is no question of any criminality being sought to be inflicted under Section 138 of the N.I. Act as the same does not answer the description of enforceable debt or liability. 6. Submission is that it is a case of abuse of process of law. 7. Learned AGA on the other hand has submitted that whatever arguments are being sought to be raised are the matter of trials which cannot be gone into at this stage particularly when presumption under Section 139 of the N.I. Act is already there. 8. I have heard the submissions so made across the bar and also perused the material on record. Apparently, the complaint alleges dishonouring of a cheque of Rs. 35,00,000/-. The contention of the learned counsel for the applicant is that the same was a cheque presented as a security thus the provisions of Section 138 of the N.I. Act would not apply. He seeks to rely upon a tenancy agreement also executed between the applicant and the opposite party no.2 and according to him there is nothing on record worth consideration even a document to suggest that any amount was being transferred to the tune of Rs.35,00,000/-. 10. The question as to whether the cheques were meant for security of the same has been misutilized is off-course the matter of trial as provisions of Section 139 of the N.I. Act are already there which provides for presumption in favour of the amount of the cheque. 11. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of 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 had clearly observed that the issue as to whether the cheques were issued by way of security is a matter of defence. 12. As regards the submission that the cheque was misutilized or misused against the purpose for which it is claimed to have been issued at best at defence consideration whereof would only arise at a stage when a decision post trial is to be taken either for convicting or acquittal of the accused however, since the said stage has not arisen till now thus, it would not be appropriate for the Court to delve into the said issue. Moreover, in absence of pointing out of any jurisdictional infirmity committed by the court below, this Court is not required to throttle the investigation while quashing the summoning order. 13. Accordingly, no case is made out. The application stands consigned to record. Order Date :- 7.5.2025 piyush Digitally signed by :- PIYUSH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad