Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:135528 Court No. - 75 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 27682 of 2025 Applicant :- Pankaj Khanna Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Rajiv Sisodia,Shashank Dwivedi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Vikas Budhwar,J. 1. Heard Sri Rajiv Sisodiya, learned counsel for the applicant as well as Sri Moti Lal learned AGA for the State. 2. This is an application filed U/s 528 BNSS for quashing the entire proceeding of complaint case no. 3660 of 2023 (Vivek Chaudhary vs. Pankaj Khanna) as well as summoning order dated 01.03.2023 under Section 138 of N.I. Act, P.S. Kotwali City, District Bijnor pending in the court of Additional Civil Judge/ Junior Division II/ N.I. Act, Bijnor. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that on 30.01.2023 a complaint stood lodged by the opposite party no.2 U/s 138 of N.I. Act with an allegation that the applicant had discharge of his liability had drawn a cheque bearing no. 000070 dated 30.11.2022 of an amount of Rs. 20 lacs which on presentation in the bank came to be dishonoured on 05.12.2022 information whereof was received on 09.12.2022 and, thereafter a statutory demand notice came to be issued on 02.01.2023 followed by a complaint U/s 138 of N.I. Act on 30.01.2023 and the applicant came to be summoned on 01.03.2023. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the said cheque was by way of security with the opposite party no.2. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted it does not answer the description of the debts and liabilities under section 138 of N.I. Act. 4. Learned AGA on the other hand submits that once a cheque stood drawn and it was dishonoured then the presumption U/s 139 of N.I. Act would be there. 5. I have considered the submissions so made across the bar and perused the record. 6. Apparently with relation to discharge of liability as alleged in the complaint an cheque stood drawn which was dishonoured followed by a statutory demand notice. The question as to whether the said cheque was by way of security and it was to be returned by the opposite party no.2 to the applicant with regard to the satisfaction of the amount so due is a question of trial which cannot be gone into at this stage. The issue of question/ objection of the cheque by way of security can be came up for consideration before the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of M/s Womb Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. vs Vijay Ahuja 2022 (18) SCC 631 and the Apex Court observed as under: "In our opinion, the High Court has muddled the entire issue. The averment in the complaint does indicate that the signed cheques were handed over by the accused to the complainant. The cheques were given by way of security, is a matter of defence. Further, it was not for the discharge of any debt or any liability is also a matter of defence. The relevant facts to countenance the defence will have to be proved - that such security could not be treated as debt or other liability of the accused. That would be a triable issue. We say so because, handing over of the cheques by way of security per se would not extricate the accused from the discharge of liability arising from such cheques." 7. In Sunil Todi and others Vs. State of Gujarat, (2022) 16 SCC 762 the Hon'ble Apex Court has reiterated the aforesaid law. 8. Moreover, presumption U/s 139 of N.I. Act is there. Accordingly the interference is declined and the present application is disposed of, leaving it open for the applicant to raise all the legal and factual issue while contesting the trial and the Court has no reasons to disbelieve that the shall be decided expeditiously in accordance with law. Order Date :- 1.8.2025 C. MANI (Vikas Budhwar,J.) Digitally signed by :- CHANDRAMANI VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Digitally signed by :- CHANDRAMANI VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad