Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:140489 Court No. - 75 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 29968 of 2025 Applicant :- Mohit Jain Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Rakesh Kumar Garg,Yash Garg Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Vikas Budhwar,J. 1. Heard Sri Yash Garg learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Pankaj Kumar Rai learned State Law Officer for the State. 2. This is an application filed under Section 528 of the B.N.S.S. for quashing order dated 25.03.2025 passed by the Learned Presiding Officer, Special Court, N.I. Act, Agra in complaint case no. 6903521 of 2018 (Old Case No. 3868 of 2014) u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, PS Hariparwat, District Agra, order dated 14.07.2025 passed by the Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court no.19, Agra in Criminal Revision no. 274 of 2025 and entire proceedings of the complaint case no. 6903521 of 2018 (Old Case No. 3868 of 2014) u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, Police Station Hariparwat, District Agra pending in the learned Special Court, N.I. Act, Agra. 3. The case of the applicant is that a complaint was preferred by the opposite party no.2 on 3.9.2024 with an allegation that the applicant in order to discharge his liability had drawn a cheque bearing no.092600 dated 15.4.2014 for an amount of Rs.40 lacs which on presentation in the bank on 12.7.2014 was dishonoured with the remarks fund insufficient followed by a statutory demand notice dated 30.07.2014 which was served upon the applicant on 1.8.2014 but no payments were made thus on 3.9.2014 the complaint came to be preferred under Section 138 of the N.I. Act pursuant whereto the applicant came to be summoned by the court below. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that an application came to be preferred by the applicant on 20.1.2025 for summoning all the documents with respect to dishonour of cheque dated 19.4.2014 from the State Bank of Pattiyala, Sanjay Place, Agra. The said application came to be rejected by the court of Presiding Officer, Special Court, N.I. Court, Agra on 25.3.2025 against which the applicant preferred a Criminal Revision No.274 of 2025, Mohit Jain vs. State of U.P. which came to be rejected by virtue of the order dated 14.7.2025. 5. Questioning both the orders, the present application has been preferred. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the order impugned in the present application cannot be sustained for the simple reason that no prejudice whatsoever would have been caused in case the documents with respect to dishonouring of a cheque bearing no.092600 of Rs.40 lacs on 19.4.2014 would have been summoned from the State Bank of Pattiyala, Sanjay Place, Agra. He has further submitted that earlier the said cheque presented by the opposite party no.2 which was dishonoured on two grounds, signatures mismatched and funds insufficient and here now the cheque which is being stated to have been dishonoured on 12.7.2014 with the remarks that the funds were insufficient. He has also submitted that the cheque has been miss- utilized and the signatures have been fabricated. He has thus submitted that the court below has not gone into the correct perspective of the matter and rejected the application. 7. Learned State Law Officer on the other hand submits that whatever might be the present controversy emanates about the dishonouring of a cheque dated 19.4.2014 on 12.7.2014. Thus, there is no connection between dishonouing of a cheque on 19.4.2014. 8. I have heard the submissions so made across the bar and perused the record carefully. 9. Apparently, a complaint stood lodged by the opposite party no.2 with respect to dishonour of a cheque bearing no.092600 of Rs.40 lacs dated 19.4.2014 on 12.7.2014 followed by a statutory demand notice. The request so sought to be made by the applicant for summoning of the entire documents from the State Bank of Pattiyala, Sanjay Place, Agra about the dishonouring of a cheque dated 19.4.2014 on the same date i.e. on 19.04.2024 is nowhere connected with the present controversy particularly when the cheque dated 19.4.2014 was dishonoured on 12.7.2014 followed by a statutory demand notice. In any view of the matter, there is no link in between both of them and nothing has been brought on record so as to suggest that there is any linkage or any connection with the cheque which was dishonoured on 19.4.2014. 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 :- 18.8.2025 piyush Digitally signed by :- PIYUSH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad