Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:136651 Court No. - 75 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 27115 of 2024 Applicant :- Muniraj Goswami Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Dinesh Kumar Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Mahendra Kumar Shukla Hon'ble Vikas Budhwar,J. 1. Heard Sri D.K. Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned AGA and Sri Mahendra Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2. 2. This application u/s 528 of BNSS has been preferred to quash the entire proceedings in Complaint case No.304 of 2020 (Anju Kesarwani Vs. Muniraj Goswami), under section 138 N.I. Act, Police Station-Daraganj, District-Prayagraj, in pursuant to the impugned summoning order dated 05.01.2022 passed by Special Chief Judicial Magistrate, Allahabad, pending in the court of Special Chief Judicial Magistrate, Allahabad. 3. The case of the applicant is that the complaint stood lodged by the opposite party no. 2 against the applicant with an allegation that the applicant herein had entered into an agreement with the opposite party no. 2 to transfer his house pursuant whereto the applicant had advanced some money in cash and when the same could not materialize then the applicant herein had drawn a cheque for discharge of his liability which came to be dishonored followed by statutory demand notice and complaint and thereafter, the applicant was summoned. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the summoning order cannot be sustained for a simple reason particularly when the cheques so stated to have been dishonored as alleged in the complaint were mis-utilized and mis- used and a complaint was also lodged and further on top of it the mother-in-law of the opposite party no. 2 also lodged a complaint under Section 138 with respect to certain monetary transaction. Submission is that there is no legal debt or liability so as to attract the provisions of Section 138 of the NI Act. It is also submitted that the applicant became ill pursuant whereto the opposite party no. 2 got an opportunity to take away the cheques and to mis- utilize them. 4. Learned AGA as well as the counsel for the opposite party no. 2 submits that once the cheque stood drawn then the presumption under Section 139 of the NI Act would be there. 5. I have heard the submission so made across the bar and perused the record carefully. 6. The sole question which arises for determination is the extent of judicial intervention at this stage in the present proceedings. Apparently, the allegation is regarding dishonoring of a cheque, the question as to whether the cheque was actually drawn or not is a question of trial. Further so far as the objection raised by the applicant with regard to the fact that the cheque stood mis-placed and was prone to mis-utilization and it was rather mis-utilized and a complaint stood lodged is also at best a defence, consideration whereof would be required if raised during the trial. Moreover, presumption under Section 138 of the NI Act would be there. 7. Accordingly, interference is declined, application stands disposed of leaving it open for the applicant to take all legal and factual grounds before the court below. Order Date :- 12.8.2025 Rajesh Digitally signed by :- RAJESH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad