Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:146021 Court No. - 75 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 31395 of 2025 Applicant :- Jameer Gulab Patel Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Mukesh Chandra Gupta,Shubham Prakash Gupta Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Vikas Budhwar,J. 1. Heard Sri Mukesh Chandra Gupta, learned counsel for the applicants as well as Sri Pankaj Kumar Rai, learned State Law Officer for the State. 2. This application u/s 528 of BNSS has been preferred to quash the entire proceeding Complaint Case no. 25858 of 2023 (Nayak Kurban Anasari Versus Jameer Gulab Patel) under section 138 Negotiable Instrument Act Police Station Sadar District Meerut pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate/ Additional Civil Judge Junior Division Court No. 5 Meerut. 3. The case of the applicant is that a complaint stood preferred on 22.11.2023 by the opposite party no. 2 against the applicant under Section 138 of the NI Act with an allegation that with respect to discharge of a liability the applicant herein had drawn a cheque bearing no. 461548 of an amount of Rs. 9,23,000/- which on presentation in the bank on 07.10.2023 came to be dishonored on 08.10.2023 followed by a statutory demand notice dated 02.11.2023, a complaint came to be filed on 22.11.2023 and the applicant came to be summoned on 09.02.2024. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the summoning order cannot be sustained for the simple reason that first of all there is no legal debt or liability and further the original return memo is not on record. 4. Learned State Law Officer, on the other hand, submits that once the cheque stood drawn and it was dishonored then the presumption under Section 139 of the NI Act would be there. 5. I have heard the submissions so made across the bar and perused the record carefully. 6. The sole question which arises for determination is the extent of judicial intervention. Apparently, with respect to dishonoring of a cheque, a statutory demand notice came to be issued followed by a complaint. The objection of the learned counsel for the applicant that original return memo is not on record is a subject matter which needs consideration at the time when the trial commences and its ramifications affect and impact would be tested not at the stage when the summoning order has been passed, moreover, presumption under Section 139 of the NI Act is there and further the applicant is not disputed the factum of issuance of the cheque and dishonoring of the same. 7. Accordingly, no case is made out for interfere, interference is declined, the application stands disposed of, leaving it open to the applicant to raise all legal and factual issues while contesting the trial. Order Date :- 23.8.2025 Rajesh Digitally signed by :- RAJESH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad