Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:140922 Court No. - 75 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 30280 of 2025 Applicant :- Smt. Sandhya Singh Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Manoj Kumar Tiwari Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Vikas Budhwar,J. 1. Heard Sri Manoj Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel for the applicant as well as Sri Vikas Sharma, learned State Law Officer for the State. 2. This application u/s 528 of BNSS has been preferred to quash the summoning order dated 01-10-2022 alongwith N.B.W. order dated 31-05-2025 passed by learned Additional Civil Judge (S.D.) 2nd/Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gorakhpur as well as entire criminal proceeding of Complaint Case No.142209 of 2021, (Ravindra pratap Singh Vs. Smt. Sandhya Singh) U/s 138 N.I.Act, P.S.-Chiluatal, District- Gorakhpur, pending in the Court of learned Civil (S.D.) Court No.2 Gorakhpur. 3. The case of the applicant is that on 15.11.2021 a complaint stood lodged under Section 138 of the NI Act against the applicant with an allegation that the applicant had drawn a cheque bearing no. 167715 dated 05.07.2021 of Rs. 4,00,000/- which on presentation in the bank on 23.09.2021 which was dishonored on 28.09.2021 followed by a statutory demand notice dated 20.10.2021 and the complaint on 15.11.2021 and the applicant was summoned on 01.10.2022 under Section 138 of the NI Act. Learned counsel for the applicant has invited the attention of the Court towards medical prescription and the document so as to contend that the applicant has sustained injuries pursuant whereto he was hospitalized on 26.05.2021 till 14.07.2021 and in October, 2021, he was again hospitalized and he is suffering from 60% disability being a Railway Government Servant. He submits once the applicant was in hospital it is hardly possible for him to draw a cheque, thus, there is no legally enforceable debt or liability and further the cheuqe stood stolen/misplaced which has been mis- utilized by the opposite party no. 2. 4. Learned State Law Officer, on the other hand, submits that whatever arguments have been sought to be made they are the matter of defences. 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 drawing of a cheque which came to be dishonored. The question as to whether the applicant is actually drawing the cheque or not and he was hospitalized under medical treatment and he is not in a position to even draw a cheque is concerned, the same is at best a defence consideration whereof would be necessitated if raised during the trial even otherwise presumption under Section 139 of the NI Act is there. 7. Accordingly, the application stands disposed of leaving it open to the applicant to contest the trial taking all legal and factual grounds which are permissible and advisable under law. 8. At this stage, learned counsel for the applicant submits that a direction be issued for consideration of bail. 9. This Court has no reason to disbelieve that in case, applicant moves appropriate proceedings before the court below for enlargement of bail, then the same may be decided with most expedition in accordance with law of the land. Order Date :- 19.8.2025/Rajesh Digitally signed by :- RAJESH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad