Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:142000 Court No. - 75 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 30552 of 2025 Applicant :- Soniya Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Chandra Prakash,Ram Sajiwan Prajapati Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Vikas Budhwar,J. 1. Heard Sri Ram Sajiwan Prajapati, learned counsel for the applicant and learned AGA for the State. 2. This application u/s 528 of BNSS has been preferred to quash the impugned order dated 03.07.2025 passed by Additional District & Session Judge, Court No.11, Saharanpur in Criminal Revision No. 685 of 2024 (Soniya Versus State of U.P. and another) whereby dismissed the Criminal Revision and confirm the order dated 07.12.2023 passed by Presiding Officer, Additional Court, Saharanpur in Complaint No. 4001554 of 2023 (Narayan Datta Versus Soniya Devi), under Section 138 N.I.Act, Police Station- Kotwali Dehat, District-Saharanpur. 3. The case of the applicant is that a complaint stood lodged by the opposite party no. 2 on 19.10.2023 under Section 138 of the NI Act with an allegation that the applicant with respect to discharge of the liability had drawn a cheque bearing no. 00002 dated 12.09.2023 of an amount of Rs. 3,00,000/- which on presentation in the bank on 15.09.2023 was dishonored with remark "fund insufficient" followed by a statutory demand notice dated 16.09.2023 and the complaint on 19.10.2023 and the applicant came to be summoned under Section 138 of the NI Act on 07.12.2023. Thereafter, a revision was preferred which was dismissed on 03.07.2025. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the said cheques were with the opposite party no. 2 as security and they do not answer the description of any debt or liability so as to invoke the provisions of Section 138 of the NI Act. Submission is that the said cheques has been mis-utilized and no payment whatsoever remains to be made. 4. Learned AGA, on the other hand, submits that once the cheque stood drawn and the presumption under section 139 of the NI Act would be there. 5. Having heard the submissions so made across the bar and after perusing the record, the sole question which arises for determination is the extent of judicial intervention. Apparently, as per the complaint, the allegation is that the applicant had drawn a cheque which stood dishonored followed by a statutory demand notice. On a pointed query being raised to the learned counsel for the applicant as to whether there is any procedural infraction of Section 138 read with Section 142 of the NI Act the answer is in negative. As regards the submission so made by the learned counsel for the applicant that the said cheque was by way of security and it does not answer the description of debt or liability is concerned. Suffice it to say that the same is a subject matter of trial as held in 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. With respect to the submission made by the learned counsel for the applicant no outstanding dues which was required to be paid is concerned, the same is at best a defence consideration whereof would be necessitated if raised during the trial and not at the stage of summoning, moreover, the presumption under Section 139 of the NI Act is there. 6. Accordingly, the application stands disposed of. Order Date :- 20.8.2025 Rajesh Digitally signed by :- RAJESH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad