Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010043622025 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Crl.Pet./237/2025 ASHAHAK ALI S/O MD.ASHRAB ALI R/O VILL-BANIARAPARA P.O.GAREMARI DIST. BARPETA, ASSAM PIN-781314 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR REP BY THE PP, ASSAM 2:AMZAD ALI S/O LATE ABDUL AZIZ R/OVILL AND P.O.KHORDHORA P.S.BARPETA DIST. BARPETA ASSAM PIN-78130 Advocate for the Petitioner : RAFIKA HUSSAIN, J S AHMED,MR. KHAIRUL ISLAM Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, Page No.# 2/4 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA ORDER Date : 03.03.2025 1. Heard Mr. J. S. Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. K. K. Das, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. 2. This application under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023 has been filed by the petitioner, namely, Md. Ashahak Ali, praying for quashing of proceeding of N.I. Case No. 151/2024 pending in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Barpeta. 3. The facts relevant for consideration of the instant criminal petition, in brief, are that the respondent No. 2 had filed a complaint under Section 138 of the N.I. Act against the present petitioner before the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Barpeta. The said complaint was registered as N.I. Case No. 151/2024 which has been alleged in the said complaint that the present petitioner took a loan of Rs.7 lakh with a promise to repay the same. It is also alleged that the petitioner had issued a cheque bearing No. 183836 for Rs. 7 lakhs to the respondent No. 2 for discharge of his aforementioned liability. However, on presentation of the said cheque before his banker by the respondent No. 2, the said cheque was dishonoured due to “Payment stopped by drawer”. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the allegations made by the respondent No. 2 in his complaint petition are false allegations. It is submitted that the petitioner had given four cheques including the cheque which was dishonoured to the respondent No. 2 for the purpose of security as the respondent No. 2 had given an amount of Rs.1 lakh as personal loan with 24% annual interest thereof. Page No.# 3/4 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner have further submitted that the amount and date of the cheque has been altered by the respondent No. 2. He has further submitted that the petitioner has already paid back the loan of Rs. 1 lakh which he took from the respondent No. 2 along with interest. The learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that the respondent No. 2 is the owner of a small stationery shop and he has no capacity to give an amount of Rs. 7 lakh to anyone. Further, he submits that there is no any agreement or any other documentary evidence to show that the petitioner had given a loan amount of Rs.7 lakhs to the respondent No. 2 and, therefore, he prays for quashing of N.I. Case No. 151/2024 pending before the Court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Barpeta. 6. It appears on perusal of the copy of complaint petition filed by the respondent No. 2 before the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Barpeta that the said complaint disclosed all the ingredients of an offence under Section 138 of the NI Act. 7. As regards the denial by the present petitioner that he has not taken any loan from the respondent No. 2, it is a question of fact and the same is to be ascertained by the Trial Court only on the basis of evidence adduced before it by both the parties. 8. This Court is of the considered opinion that by merely pleading his denial about the allegations made in the complaint against the petitioner, a case for invoking jurisdiction of this Court under Section 528 of BNSS is not made out. 9. It is not in dispute that the inherent power of Court under Section 528 of BNSS may not be exercised to thwart a trial pending before a Court of law Page No.# 4/4 merely on the basis of an assertion made by the petitioner. It is only when no case is made out on the basis of the complaint filed by the respondent No. 2 (complainant), a case for invoking jurisdiction of this Court under Section 528 of BNSS would have been made out. It is settled law that the power of quashing should be exercised sparingly with circumspection. 10. This Court while considering an application under Section 528 of BNSS cannot embark upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the complaint by the complainant/respondent No. 2. 11. The petitioner has failed to show that apart from his denial of the accusation made against him in the complaint by the respondent No. 2, any other ground is there for invoking the inherent jurisdiction of this Court. 12. This criminal petition, therefore, lacks merit and deserves dismissal which this Court accordingly does. 13. This criminal petition is dismissed without issuing notice to the respondent side. JUDGE Comparing Assistant