Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:119241 Court No. - 75 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 1429 of 2025 Applicant :- Dimpal Singh Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and another Counsel for Applicant :- Vijay Kumar Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Vikas Budhwar,J. 1. Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record. 2. Heard Sri Vijay Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned AGA for the State. 3. This application u/s 528 of BNSS has been preferred to quash as well as impugned summoning order dated 29.05.2024 passed by the entire proceedings Learned A.C.J.M.-V, Jaunpur in Complaint Case No.310 of 2022 (Sipahi Lal Vs. Dimpal Singh), under section 138 Ν.Ι. Act, Police Station-Rampur, District-Jaunpur. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that a complaint was lodged by the opposite party no. 2 under Section 138 of the NI Act on 19.11.2022 with an allegation that the applicant herein with respect to discharge of the liability had drawn two cheques bearing no. 34528 and 34526 dated 01.08.2022 and 12.08.2022 of Rs. 7,70,000/- and 5,00,000/- when presented in the bank came to be dishonored on 23.09.2022 & 07.10.2022 information whereof was received by the opposite party no. 2 on 17.10.2022, a statutory demand notice dated 21.10.2022 was issued followed by a complaint on 19.11.2022 and the applicant came to be summoned on 29.05.2024 under Section 138 of NI Act. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant post receipt of the summons had obtained bail on 13.08.2024. Learned counsel for the applicant has further submitted that there is no legally enforceable debt or liability upon the applicant so as to invoke the provisions of Section 138 of the NI Act as according to him, the father-in-law of the applicant who is aged about 90 years in the year 2020 sold his land for 13,00,000/- thereafter, the applicant with the permission of the father-in-law gave the contract to the opposite party to build her house with the consideration of 13,00,000/- along with materials. It is submitted that the applicant had paid the opposite party no. 2 to 13,00,000/-, however, the opposite party no. 2 had stolen the cheque and filled the amount in figures and words and got the cheque dishonored. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that even complaint to the said extent was also lodged before the police station regarding the fact that the cheque stood lost and prone to misuse. 5. It is further contended that though in the summoning order the reason for dishonor is insufficient funds but return memo of the bank shows that the reason of dishonor is other reasons (please specify). 6. Learned AGA, on the other hand, submits that whatever arguments are being sought to be raised centres around factual issues and the presumption under Section 139 of the NI Act is always there. 7. Having heard the submission so made across the bar and perused the record. 8. The sole question which arises for determination is the extent of judicial intervention. Apparently, the allegation in the complaint is that the cheque stood drawn by the applicant which was dishonored followed by a statutory demand notice and the complaint. On a pointed query being raised to the learned counsel for the applicant as to whether there is any procedural infirmity with regard to Section 138 and 142 of the NI Act, the answer is in negative. Even otherwise, the presumption is always in favour of the holder of the cheque under Section 139. The argument that the cheques were lost or stolen by the opposite party no. 2 as he used to visit the house of the applicant in connection with execution of the work for construction of the house is concerned, the same is at best a defence consideration whereof would only arise when the trial commences. Since the applicant has already obtained bail, thus, it would be appropriate in the facts and circumstances of the case for applicant to contest the trial and take all legal and factual grounds/defences which are permissible and advisable in law. 9. Accordingly, no case is made out for interference, the application stands disposed of leaving it open for the applicant to take all legal and factual grounds. Order Date :- 22.7.2025 Rajesh Digitally signed by :- RAJESH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad