Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:127736 Court No. - 75 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 27616 of 2025 Applicant :- Mr. Dilip Kumar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Subhash Chandra Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Vikas Budhwar,J. 1. Heard Sri Subhash Chandra Mishra learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Moti Lal learned AGA for the State. 2. This is an application filed under Section 528 of the B.N.S.S. for quashing the entire proceeding of complaint case no. 19019 of 2023 (M/s Tecknowlabs Pvt. Ltd. Versus Dilip Kumar), Under section 138 N.I. Act, Police Station Phase-II, District Gautam Buddha Nagar, pending in the court of Civil Judge (S.D.), F.T.C./Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gautam Buddha Nagar as well as the summoning order dated 09.04.2024 passed by learned Civil Judge (S.D.), F.T.C./Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gautam Buddha Nagar. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that a complaint under Section 138 of the N.I. Act came to be filed by the opposite party no.2 against the applicant with an allegation that the applicant had purchased a Grinder and thereafter a cheque bearing no.000105 dated 1.8.2023 of Rs.3,17,250/- came to be drawn which came to be dishonoured on 10.10.2023 on the premise that the account closed a statutory demand notice was issued on 2.11.2023 and thereafter the complaint came to be preferred on 19.12.2023 and the applicant came to be summoned under Section 138 of the N.I. Act on 9.4.2023. He has further submitted that no legal enforceable debt or liability is there and the applicant had not been drawn a cheque and thus the summoning order cannot be sustained. 4. Learned AGA on the other hand submits that once the cheque stood drawn that the presumption under Section 139 of the N.I. Act would be there. 5. Having heard the submissions so made across the bar, the sole question which arises for determination is the extent of judicial intervention. Apparently, a cheque stood drawn which came to be dishonoured followed by a statutory demand notice. The question as to whether the cheque was withdrawn or not and the applicant is liable or not to pay is a subject matter of defence. No case is made out for interference. 6. Accordingly, interference is declined. The 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 :- 31.7.2025 piyush Digitally signed by :- PIYUSH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad