Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:135979 Court No. - 75 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 29215 of 2025 Applicant :- Udam Singh Saini And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Shubham Srivastava,Sunil Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Vikas Budhwar,J. 1. Heard Sri Sunil Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicants as well as 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 summoning order dated 27.10.2020 passed by Additional Judge Saharanpur in Complaint Case no. 5098 of 2020, Smt. Rashmi Singh and Versus Udam another, under section P.S, 138/141 Ν.I. Act, Sadar Bazar, district in Saharanpur, pending the court of Additional Judge Saharanpur. 3. Learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that a complaint was lodged by the O.P. No.2 on 28.05.2020 under Section 138 of N.I. Act against the applicants with an allegation that with respect to discharge of a liability, the applicants herein had drawn a cheque of Rs.3,00,000/- bearing number "000022" dated 11.01.2020, which on presentation in the bank came to be dishonoured on 27.01.2020 with the remarks 'payment stopped by drawer' followed by a statutory demand notice issued on 20.02.2020, thereafter a complaint was filed and applicant came to be summoned under Section 138 of N.I. Act on 27.10.2020. Learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that the applicants have already obtained bail and are contesting the trial. Submission is that the said cheque stood stolen and a complaint was lodged by the applicants before the police authority and the reference whereof has been made in G.D. report and further the applicants have also lodged proceedings in the shape of FIR dated 17.06.2021 bearing number "0268" dated 17.06.2021 under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471, 506 IPC. 4. Learned A.G.A. on the other hand submits that once the cheque stood drawn and it was 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. Apparently, as per the allegations made in the complaint, the cheque, which stood drawn, came to be dishonoured. The question as to whether the said cheque was issued in discharge of a liability being answering the description of debt and liability under Section 138 of N.I. Act, is a subject matter of trial. Furthermore, the question with respect to the theft being committed and the cheques being stolen and what would be its impact and effect is a question of defence, consideration whereof would be necessitated, when raised during the trial. Moreover, once the cheque stood drawn and it was dishonoured, then the presumption under Section 139 of the N.I. Act is always there in favour of the holder of the cheque. Further the summoning order is dated 27.10.2020 and the proceedings are already underway and the applicants have participated in the said proceedings, thus it is for the applicant to contest the said proceedings while raising all legal and factual grounds. 7. Accordingly, interference is declined. The application is disposed of leaving it open to the applicants 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