Court No. - 75 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 29464 of 2025 Applicant :- Manyuk Agro Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Shiv Sagar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Vikas Budhwar,J. 1. Heard Sri Shiv Sagar Singh, 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 criminal proceedings of the Complaint Case No. 562 of 2021 (Vinod Kumar Vs. Manyuk Agro (wrongly typed incomplaint Mayank Agro), Police Station Amroha as well as summoning order dated 15.11.2021 passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division)-I /Judicial Magistrate, District Amroha under Section 138 N.I. Act. 3. The case of the applicant is that a complaint was lodged by the opposite party no.2 on 11.07.2019, under Section 138 of the N.I. Act with an allegation that with respect to the discharge of the liability, the applicant had drawn a cheque bearing no. 191051 dated 27.5.2019 of Rs.2 lacs, which on presentation on the bank 27.5.2019 came to be dishonoured in the presumption, with the remarks insufficient balance, followed by a statutory demand notice dated of 14.6.2019 and the complaint on 11.07.2019 and the applicant came to be summoned by the court below court on 15.11.2021 under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the summoning order cannot be sustained for the simple reason that first of all perusal of page 23 of the paper book would reveal that the said cheque was drawn in favour of one Vakeel, however, the same was manipulated and interpolation was made, particularly when the name of Vakeel was deleted and the name of the opposite party no. 2 was inserted and further, there happens to be the interpolations and manipulations in the date as it is apparent that the said cheque was of the year 2017 but it had been made in 2019 in view of the overwriting. He has further submitted that the entire payments have already been made in cash, now nothing amounts would remains to be paid. However, with the collusion with the bank, the opposite party no. 2, in the return memo, which is at page 24, item no. 99, just adjacent to other reason fund insufficient has been mentioned, though fund has been insufficient comes under the item no. 01, our separate category. He has thus submitted that there is no legal enforceable debt or liability so as to attract Section 138 of the N.I. Act. 5. Learned AGA on the other hand submits that once the cheques stood drawn, that the presumption under section 139 of the N.I. Act would be there. 6. I have heard the submissions so made across the bar and perused the record carefully. Apparently, the allegation is that the complaint is with respect to drawing of a cheque of rupees two lakhs which came to be dishonoured followed by a statutory demand notice at the complaint. 7. As regards the submission of the learned counsel for the applicant is that there has been interpolations not only in the date, while making the year from 2017 to 2019 and changing the name, from Vakil to the name of the opposite party no. 2 are concerned they are subject matter of trial, This court at this stage of summoning is not required to examine the same particularly when evidence ought to be lead in the trial and opinion of other experts is also required. 8. So far as the contention that the entire amounts to be paid by the applicant to the opposite party no.2 in cash is concerned, the same is a defense consideration would be necessitated if raised during the trial. In so far as the argument raised by the learned counsel for the applicant that the cheque was dishonoured while incorrectly showing it to be funds insufficient is concerned, the same is also a defense, consideration whereof would be required in the trial as at the stage of summoning these are not being criteria or parameters to adjudge whether the summoning order suffers from any infirmity or not. Moreover, presumption under section 139 of the N.I. Act is always there. 9. 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 :- 12.8.2025 piyush Digitally signed by :- PIYUSH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad