Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:135061 Court No. - 75 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 29234 of 2025 Applicant :- Vidyamani Shukla @ Mangesh Shukla Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Brijesh Tiwari Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Vikas Budhwar,J. 1. Heard Sri Brijesh Tiwari, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri J.B. Singh, learned AGA for the State. 2. This is an application filed under Section 528 of the B.N.S.S. to stay the further proceedings of complaint case no. 1316 of 2021 (Nikhil Goel Vs. Vidyamani Shukla) arising out of order dated 24.06.2025 passed by learned court of Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 3, Kanpur Nagar, under Section 142(2) of N.I. Act. 3. The case of the applicant is that a complaint was lodged by the opposite party no.2 on 4.1.2021 under Section 138 of the N.I. Act against the applicant that the applicant with respect to discharge of the liability had drawn a cheque bearing no.000033 of Rs.7,98,487/- dated 6.11.2020 which on presentation in the bank came to be dishonoured on 2.12.2020 followed by a statutory demand notice dated 14.12.2020 and a complaint on 4.1.2021 and the applicant came to be summoned under Section 138 of the N.I. Act on 22.3.2021. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that an application seeking discharge was also preferred which came to be rejected on 24.6.2025. He has further submitted that an application came to be preferred by the applicant under Section 91 of the Cr.P.C./94 of the B.N.S.S. for issuing of a process for summons to produce documents etc. in which an order came to be passed by the Judicial Magistrate court no.2, Kanpur Nagar on 28.1.2025 requiring the Manager to be present, however, on an application preferred by the applicant under Section 142(2) of the N.I. Act an order came to be passed on 24.6.2025 rejecting the same holding that the court at Kanpur had jurisdiction to try the said proceedings. Learned counsel for the applicant has questioned the order the dated 24.6.2025 rejecting the application under Section 142(2) N.I. Act. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that a bare perusal of the complaint would go to show that though the cheque came to be drawn by the applicant but barring the recital contained in para 7 that the said cheque was presented in ICICI Bank, there is no detail as to which of the branch at which place, the said cheque was presented for encashment. He further submits that the opposite party no.2 is habitual in committing frauds as he possess more than one Pan Card and identity documents and he uses the same according to his own convenience and particularly the courts at Varanasi had the jurisdiction in that regard. 6. Learned AGA on the other hand submits that whatever might be once the proceedings are underway and the applicant is already contesting the same and further a categorical finding has been recorded that the cheque stood presented in the ICICI bank branch Azad Nagar, Nawabganj, Kanpur Nagar for presentation where the opposite party no.2 payee was already holding an account then the jurisdiction under Section 142(2) of the N.I. Act would fall. 7. Heard the submissions so made across the bar and perused the record carefully. The sole question which arises for determination is the extent of judicial intervention. Apparently, the allegation in the complaint is with relation to drawing of a cheque of an amount of Rs.7,98,487/-bearing no.000033 dated 6.11.2020 which on presentation in the bank came to be dishonoured on 2.11.2020 followed by a statutory demand notice and complaint and the summoning order dated 3.2.2021. 8. Importantly, the jurisdiction with regard to the Court which is to try the said proceedings stands provided under Section 142 of the N.I. Act. Here in the present case no doubt there is no recital in para 7 that in which branch/city the cheque stood presented of the ICICI bank drawn by the applicant, however a finding has been recorded in the order under challenge that the cheques stood presented in the bank account maintained by the payee holder/holder in due course holding i.e. opposite party no.2 complainant in ICICI Bank branch Azad Nagar, Nawabganj, Kanpur Nagar thus, it cannot be said the courts at Kanpur had no jurisdiction to take congnizance and to proceed with the matter. 9. 9. As regards the submission of the learned counsel for the applicant is that the opposite party no.2 has more than one identity cards, Aadhar card and he uses them according to his suitability just in order open bank account and the at Varanasi had jurisdiction is concerned particularly when the bank officials were summoned is concerned the same is an independent issue which needs consideration in that regard. Moreover the order as on today cannot be said to be faulty. 10. Accordingly, interference is declined. 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 :- 11.8.2025 piyush Digitally signed by :- PIYUSH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad