Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:136271 Court No. - 75 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 29398 of 2025 Applicant :- Deepak Kumar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Nanhe Lal Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Sanjai Singh Hon'ble Vikas Budhwar,J. 1. Heard Sri Nanhe Lal Tripathi learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned AGA for the State and Sri Sanjai Singh, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2. 2. This is an application filed under Section 528 of the B.N.S.S. for quashing the order dated 01.10.2021 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Lalitpur in Case no. 2382 of 2020 (Punjab National Bank versus Deepak Kumar) and also quashed the order dated 19.11.2024 passed by Additional Sessions Judge (F.T.C First) Lalitpur in criminal revision no.108/2023 (Deepak Kumar Versus State of U.P and Others) P.S. Kotwali Lalitpur District Lalitpur. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that a complaint stood lodged under Section 138 of the N.I. Act against the applicant on 7.8.2020/12.8.2020 by the opposite party no.2 with an allegation that the applicant herein happens to be a civil contractor who had approached the bank for financial assistance and of Rs.15 lacs and the total amount due and payable became Rs.15,94,000/- plus interest, the applicant herein with respect to discharge of liability had drawn a cheque bearing no.241560 dated 9.6.2020 of an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- which on presentation in the bank came to be dishonoured on 29.6.2020 followed by a statutory demand notice dated 13.7.2020 which came to be served upon the applicant on 14.7.2020 followed by a complaint under Section 138 of the N.I. Act on 7.8.2020/12.8.2020 pursuant whereto the applicant came to be summoned under Section 138 of the N.I. Act on 1.10.2021 against which a revision came to be preferred which came to be rejected on 19.11.2024. 4. Questioning both the orders the applicant has filed the present application. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the summoning order as well as the impugned order cannot be sustained for a simple reason that the said cheques by way of security which were with the opposite party no.2 as at the time of advancing the financial assistance certain blank signed cheques were taken which have been made a device so as to deploy it for getting the same dishonoured. He further submits that the security cheques does not answer the description of debt or liability under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. 6. Learned AGA and learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 on the other hand submit that whatever might be once the cheques stood drawn and it has been dishonoured then the presumption under Section 138 of the N.I. Act is there. 7. I have heard the submissions so made across the bar and perused the record carefully. Apparently, with respect to discharge of a cheque of Rs.3 lacs the complaint stood lodged after issuing a statutory demand notice. The question as to whether dishonour of the security cheque amongst to offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act and can be a subject matter of adjudication at the stage of summoning order came up for consideration before the Hon'ble Apex Court in umpteen number of decisions wherein it was mandated that the issue as to whether the cheque was a security cheque is the subject matter of trial. 8. Reliance has been placed upon the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of M/s Womb Laboratories Private Limited Vs. Vijay Ahuja & another (2022) 18 SCC 631 has 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." 9. In Sunil Todi and others Vs. State of Gujarat, (2022) 16 SCC 762 the Hon'ble Apex Court has reiterated the aforesaid law. 10. Moreover the presumption under Section 139 of the N.I. Act is always there. 11. Accordingly, interference is declined, application stands disposed of leaving it open to the applicant to raise all legal and factual issues as well as issue with respect to the fact that the cheque being a security cheque does not answer the description of a dishonour of the cheque in the trial and the Court has no reasons to disbelieve that the same shall be considered in accordance with law. Order Date :- 12.8.2025 piyush Digitally signed by :- PIYUSH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad