Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:136266 Court No. - 75 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 29388 of 2025 Applicant :- Zameer Ahmad Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Rahul Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Vikas Budhwar,J. 1. Heard Sri Rahul Kumar learned counsel for the applicant and learned AGA for the State. 2. This is an application filed under Section 528 of the B.N.S.S. for quashing the entire proceeding as well as summoning order dated 30.11.2024 passed by Civil Judge (J.D.)/J.M. Naugarh, Siddharth Nagar in Complaint Case No.33135 of 2023 (Abdul Waheed Vs. Zameer Ahmad), under section 138 Ν.Ι. Act, Police Station Dumariyaganj, District Siddharth Nagar. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that a complaint stood lodged by the opposite party no.2 on 21.11.2023 under Section 138 of the N.I. Act with an allegation that with respect to deals struck between the applicant and the opposite party no.2 the opposite party no.2 had advanced certain amounts, however, the said property land in question was sold by the applicant in favour of the somebody else thus, pursuant to an agreement two cheques one of Rs.9 lacs and second of Rs.2 lacs, (totaling Rs.11 lacs) stood drawn which came to be dishonoured twice on 21.7.2023 and 22.9.2023 when presented in the bank followed by a statutory demand notice dated 17.10.2023 and the complaint on 21.11.2023 pursuant whereto the applicant came to be summoned on 30.11.2024. He has further submitted that the summoning order cannot be sustained particularly in view of the fact that post dishonour of the cheque, the original cheque was handed over to the applicant that the applicant had made the entire payment in cash after selling the agriculture land, however, on the basis of the photocopy of the cheque the complaint stood preferred and on a query being made a questionair it has come on record that the original cheques are not on records. 4. Submission is that there is no legal enforceable debt or liability so as to invoke the provisions of Section 138 of the N.I. Act. 5. Learned AGA on the other hand submits that once the cheque stood drawn and it has been dishonoured the presumption under Section 139 of the N.I. Act is there. 6. I have heard the submissions so made across the bar and perused the record carefully. Apparently, the complaint alleges dishonouring of two cheques of an amount of Rs.9 lacs and 2 lacs totaling to Rs.11 lacs on couple of occasions, the question as to whether the entire payment has been made as alleged by the applicant is a question of trial consideration whereof would be necessitated if raised. As regards the fact that the original cheque is not before the court below while summoning the applicant is concerned, it is always open for the applicant to contest and raise such a ground in that regard. Moreover, looking into the fact that only summoning order has been challenged at this stage thus, this Court is not required to delve into factual aspects as they are subject matter of trial. 7. Accordingly, interference is declined. The 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 :- 12.8.2025 piyush Digitally signed by :- PIYUSH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad