Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:125186 Court No. - 75 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 26937 of 2025 Applicant :- Girraj Maheshwari Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Rajiv Tiwari,Satyendra Narayan Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Vikas Budhwar,J. 1. Heard Sri Satyendra Narayan Singh 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 further proceeding of Complaint Case No. 79 of 2023 "Old Complaint Case No. 2279 of 2021" (Bachchu Singh Vs. M/s B.N.G. Infibild Pvt. Ltd.) u/s 138 Negotiable Act, Police Station Atrauili, District Aligarh, pending in the court learned Civil Judge (Junior Division)/Fast Track Court No.2 Aligarh and summoning order dated 26.11.2021 passed by learned Additional Court Aligarh. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that on 8.3.2021, a complaint was lodged by the opposite party No. 2 under Section 138 of the N.I. Act against the applicant and the company with an allegation that the applicant herein, who owns the cold storage in order to discharge his liability for the potatoes which was stored therein, had drawn a cheque bearing No. 323890 dated 2.12.2020 for Rs.17,38,827/- in favour of the opposite party No.2 which came to be dishonoured on 31.12.2020 followed by a statutory demand notice dated 28.1.2021 which was replied on 20.2.2021 and the complaint was preferred on 8.3.2021 and the applicant came to be summoned under Section 138 of the N.I. Act on 28.11.2021. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the said cheques were misutilised and misused by the opposite party No. 2, as in this regard, regarding theft of the said cheque, a first information report was lodged on 26.6.2022 under Sections 504, 379 IPC, being FIR No.0324 against one Pramod Kumar Maheshwari, in which the Investigating Officer was appointed and a charge sheet came to be submitted against the applicant herein also which was subject matter of challenge at the instance of applicant and another accused in application under Section 528 BNSS No. 15280 of 2025, Mathew Singh and four others v. State of U.P. wherein interim protection has been accorded to the opposite party No.2. 5. Submission is that there happens to be an order for transferring the said proceedings and once an interim protection has been accorded in the FIR lodged by the applicant herein, then the applicant is also entitled to interim protection as both the cases are to be tried together as they are relatable to either dishonouring of a cheque or theft of a cheque which was misused. It is further submitted on behalf of the applicant that no legal enforcible debt is there. 6. Learned State Law Officer on the other hand, submits that once the cheques stood drawn and they were dishonoured then the presumption under Section 139 of the N.I. Act would be there and further the parameters for deciding the proceedings under Section 138 of the N.I. Act are entirely different and with respect to the provisions of the IPC and merely because charge sheet has been stayed in the State case would not be a ground to automatically grant a right to the applicant for staying of the proceedings under Section 139 of the N.I. Act. 7. I have heard the submissions so made across the bar and perused the record carefully. 8. Apparently with respect to disohonouring of a cheque, the complaints stood preferred and the summoning order was issued on 26.11.2021. Thereafter, on 26.6.2022, a first information report came to be lodged by the applicant against the opposite party No.2 faction and a charge sheet came to be submitted under Sections 420, 120B of the IPC, in Case Crime No. 324 of 2022, which on challenge at the instance of the opposite party No.2 in an Application under Section 528 BNSS No.15280 of 2025, Bachchu Singh and others v. State of U.P., interim protection has been accorded. 9. In the opinion of the Court, merely because the proceedings in the State case wherein the allegation is regarding theft of the cheque along with the other offences post submission of the charge sheet, the proceedings have been stayed would not be ipso facto a ground for stay of the complaint case under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. The scope and the ambit in both the proceedings are distinct and different, presumption under Section 139 of the N.I. Act is always there. 10. On a pointed query being raised to the learned counsel for the applicant as to whether there is any procedural infirmity with regard to infraction of Sections 138 and 142 of the N.I. Act, no answer is forthcoming but the only ground is that once the proceedings in the State case has been stayed then the proceedings in the complaint case is to be stayed. The said submission cannot be accepted and is rejected. 11. Accordingly, no good ground is made to interfere at this stage particularly when the summoning order is dated 26.11.2021 and the present application has been presented before this Court in the month of July, 2025. 12. Accordingly, interference is declined, 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. Order Date :- 29.7.2025 piyush Digitally signed by :- PIYUSH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad