Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:50899 Court No. - 73 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 24519 of 2024 Applicant :- Gd Enterprises Telecommunication And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Mohd. Afzal Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Vikas Budhwar,J. 1. Heard Shri Shivangi Singh, advocate holding brief of Shri Mohd. Afzal, learned counsel for the applicants and Sri S.K. Singh, learned AGA for the State-opposite party. 2. This application under Section 482 Cr.PC. has been filed by the applicants to quash the entire proceedings of Complaint Case No.3141 of 2023 (Govind Agarwal Vs. G.D. Enterprise, Tele Communications and another), as well as summoning order dated 15.04.2024 under Section 138 of N.I. Act, Police Station- Kamla Nagar, District Agra, pending before the court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 7, Agra. 3. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that a perusal of the complaint lodged by the opposite party no. 2 on 02.03.2023 would make it more than evident that the applicants had taken a financial assistance of Rs. 10,00,000/- from the opposite party no. 2, pursuant whereto a cheque was drawn on 03.11.2022 for payment of an amount of Rs. 10,00,000/- which on presentation on the bank stood dishonoured on 04.11.2022, thereafter on the assurance of the applicants, the cheque was again presented on 23.12.2022, which was again dishonoured on 26.12.2022, legal notice whereof was issued on 26.01.2023, and thereafter the complaint was lodged. Learned counsel for the applicants has made three arguments; firstly, in the audited balance-sheet of the proprietor firm, there is no mention of financial assistance being given to the concerned firm for an amount of Rs. 10,00,000/-; secondly, the complaint does not recite the mode and the manner by which the financial assistance was accorded and; thirdly, account in question stood closed on 10.05.2022. Submission is that the the entire proceedings are nothing but misuse of process of law as the said cheque has been misused just in order to tilt circumstances in favour of the opposite party no. 2 and to inflict criminality upon the applicants. 4. Learned AGA has opposed the argument so sought to be raised by the learned counsel for the applicants while contending that whatever arguments are being sought to be raised, they are the matter of of defences which cannot be gone into at this stage. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after perusing the record, the sole question which arises for determination is the extent for judicial intervention at this stage in the present proceedings. Apparently, the complaint discloses that a cheque of an amount of Rs. 10,00,000/- stood issued by the applicants to the opposite party no. 2 which stood dishonored. The applicants have not disputed the factum that the cheque belonged to the bank account which was owned by the applicants. Furthermore, this Court in the present proceedings at this stage is not required to go into the factum regarding the manner and the mode by which the financial assistance was provided by the opposite party no. 2 to the applicants, moreover what is relevant, is the cheque. 6. The argument so sought to be canvassed by the counsel for the applicants at the bank account stood closed on 10.05.2022 whereas the cheque was issued on 03.11.2022 is concerned, the same is also not convincing as the same cannot be gone into at this stage, as the same is also the matter of defence which can only be addressed be taken at the time, when the trial commences and not at this stage. Another limb of the argument of the learned counsel for the applicants as in the balance-sheet, there is no reference of the payment of the loan of the Rs. 10,00,000/- is a question which cannot be gone into as there is no segregation so made, apart from the same the balance-sheet which is at page 76 of the paper-book also discloses secured loans and unsecured loans. As a matter of fact, the entire gamut of argument of the learned counsel for the applicants revolves around factual issues being relatable to the defences which cannot be gone into at this stage. Apart from the same, the applicant has not disputed the fact that the signature on the cheque is not of the applicant and he has not received statutory demand notice. 7. Accordingly, no case is made out to interfere, the application stands rejected. Order Date :- 8.4.2025 A. Prajapati Digitally signed by :- ASHUTOSH KUMAR PRAJAPATI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad