Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:134949 Court No. - 75 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 27906 of 2025 Applicant :- Suhel Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Chandra Shekhar Pal,Sunil Kumar Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Vikas Budhwar,J. 1. Heard Sri Sunil Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Moti Lal, learned A.G.A. for the State. 2. This is an application under Section 528 of BNSS preferred by the applicant for quashing the complaint dated 18.10.2024, order summoning dated 03.07.2025 and proceedings initiated in pursuance thereof, at Complaint Case no. 21091/2024 (Rizwan Vs Suhel) u/s 138 Ν.Ι. Act, P.S. Ratanpuri, Muzaffarnagar, pending before Additional Civil Judge (JD)/ Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 4, Muzaffarnagar. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that a complaint was lodged by the O.P. No.2 on 18.10.2024 under Section 138 of N.I. Act against the applicant with an allegation that with respect to discharge of a liability, the applicant had drawn a cheque bearing number "847042" of an amount Rs.3,50,000/- dated 10.07.2024, which on presentation in the bank on 19.09.2024 came to be dishonoured with the remarks 'payment stopped by drawer' followed by a statutory demand notice issued on 21.09.2024, and a complaint on 18.10.2024 and the applicant came to be summoned under Section 138 of N.I. Act on 03.07.2025. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the summoning order cannot be sustained, particularly when there happens to be a complaint lodged by the applicant on 24.09.2024 before the S.S.P. regarding misplacing/theft of the said cheque and the FIR also came to be lodged bearing number "0127 of 2024" under Sections379, 504, 506 IPC against unnamed accused. Thus, the learned counsel for the applicant submits that there is no legal enforcement of debt or liability which stands accrued. 4. Learned A.G.A. on the other hand submits that once the cheque stood drawn and it has been dishonoured, then the presumption under Section 139 of the N.I. Act would be there. 5. I have heard submissions so made across the Bar and perused the record carefully. 6. The sole question which arises for determination is the extent of judicial intervention at this stage. Apparently, as per the allegations made in the complaint, the cheque, which stood drawn, came to be dishonoured. On a pointed query being raised from learned counsel for the applicant as to whether there happens to be any jurisdictional infirmity, the answer is in negative. However, the argument so raised by the learned counsel for the applicant is that the cheque was stolen, and FIR came to be lodged. In the opinion of the Court, these are the matter of defences, consideration whereof will be required, when the trial commences. Moreover the presumption under Section 139 of the N.I. Act is always there in favour of the holder of the cheque. Apart from this, the Court finds that the cheque is dated 10.07.2024, which came to be dishonoured on 19.0-9.2024 and the FIR stood lodged on 06.11.2024. 7. Accordingly, interference is declined. The application is disposed of leaving it open to the applicant to contest the trial before the court below while taking all the legal and factual grounds and this Court has no reason to disbelieve that the court below shall consider the same in correct perspective. Order Date :- 11.8.2025 N.S.Rathour (Vikas Budhwar, J) Digitally signed by :- NIPENDRA SINGH RATHOUR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad