Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:138970 Court No. - 75 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 29796 of 2025 Applicant :- Amit Kumar Verma Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Manoj Kumar Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Vikas Budhwar,J. 1. Heard Sri Manoj Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant as well as Sri K.K. Vishwakarma, learned A.G.A./State Law Officer for the State. 2. This is an application under Section 528 of BNSS preferred by the applicant for quashing the summoning order dated 05.05.2022 as well as BW Order dated 28.02.2025 in Case No.76150 of 2022 (Abhilash Mishra Vs. Amit Kumar Verma), under section 138 N.I. Act., Police Station- Kotwali, District- Kanpur Nagar, which is pending in the court of Special Judicial Magistrate-2, Kanpur Nagar. 3. The case of the applicant is that a complaint stood preferred by the O.P. No.2 on 25.04.2022 under Section 138 of N.I. Act against the applicant with an allegation that with respect to discharge of a liability, the applicant herein had drawn a cheque bearing number "158968" dated 05.02.2022 of an amount Rs.2,50,000/-, which on presentation in the bank on 25.02.2022 came to be dishonoured with the remarks 'drawer's signature illegible' followed by a statutory demand notice issued on 24.03.2022 and a complaint under Section 138 of N.I. Act and the applicant came to be summoned under Section 138 of N.I. Act on 05.05.2022. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the summoning order cannot be sustained for more the simple reason that the applicant herein is an employee of a private sector company and he had at no point of time any professional or personal relationship with O.P. No.2. As a matter of fact, the said cheque stood missing, pursuant whereto a complaint was lodged to the Station House Officer on 28.01.2022. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that there is no legal enforceable debt or liability so as to invoke the provisions of Section 138 of the N.I. Act. 4. Learned A.G.A. on the other hand submits that once the cheque stood drawn and it has been dishonoured, then the presumption under Section 139 of the N.I. Act would be there. 5. I have heard the submissions so made across the Bar and perused the record carefully. 6. Apparently, the allegation in the complaint is with respect to dishonouring of a cheque of an amount of Rs.2,50,000/- bearing number "158968" dated 05.02.2022 on 28.02.2022 followed by statutory demand notice dated 24.03.2022. On a pointed query being raised from learned counsel for the applicant as to whether there happens to be infraction of the provisions of Section 138 read with Section 142 of N.I. Act, the answer is in negative. In any view of the matter, the objection so raised by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant has no personal or business relationship with the O.P. No.2 and he happens to be an employee of pharmaceutical company and further the cheques stood lost and which was prone to misutilization it was misutilized and the complaint has been lodged to the police, is at best a defence, consideration whereof will be required, when the trial commences. Moreover the presumption under Section 139 of the N.I. Act is there in favour of the holder of the cheque. 7. Accordingly, interference is declined. The application is disposed of leaving it open to the applicant 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 :- 14.8.2025 N.S.Rathour (Vikas Budhwar, J) Digitally signed by :- NIPENDRA SINGH RATHOUR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad