Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:83204 Court No. - 73 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 28318 of 2024 Applicant :- Vijay Chaturvedi Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Abhishek Kumar Singh,Mohd. Saleem Khan Counsel for Opposite Party :- Aishwarya Pratap Singh,G.A. Hon'ble Vikas Budhwar,J. 1. Heard Mr. Mohd. Saleem Khan, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri S.P. Singh, learned State Law Officer for the State. 2. This is an application U/s 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the order dated 20.04.2024 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, court no.6 Aligarh in criminal revision no. 289 of 2023 (Vijay Chaturvedi vs. State of U.P. and another) as well as summoning order dated 02.02.2022 passed by Prescribed Authority Additional Court, Aligarh in complaint case no. 4494 of 2021 (Akash Sharma vs. Vijay Chaturvedi) U/s 138 of N.I. Act, P.S. Quarsi, Disrict Aligarh, pending in the court of Prescribed Authority- Additional Court, Aligarh. 3. The case of the applicant is that a complaint was lodged by the opposite party no.2 U/s 138 of N.I. Act with an allegations that a cheque bearing no. 000239 of an amount of Rs. 20 lac was drawn on 20.03.2021 by the applicant in favour of opposite party no.2 and the same was dishonoured on 11.06.2021 communication whereof so made by the bank to the opposite party no.2 on 14.06.2021, a registered demand notice was issued on 02.07.2021 which is stated to have been received on 26.07.2021 and in failing to make the payment, the complaint has been lodged. 4. Thereafter, the applicant has been summoned U/s 138 of N.I. Act on 02.02.2022 a criminal revision no. 289 of 2023 came to be preferred by the applicant which was also rejected on 20.04.2024. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant has not drawn the cheque in favour of opposite party no.2 rather the blank signed cheques of the applicant was lying in the office which came in the possession of opposite party no.2 and the same was misutilised and intentionally got dishonoured. The submission is that no legal enforceable debt or liability is against the applicant. 5. Learned AGA on the other hand submits that the presumption U/s 139 of N.I. Act would in favour of the complainant being the holder of the cheque. He further submits that whatever arguments are sought to be raised, they are the matter of defences. The occasion for consideration whereof has not arisen as yet. 6. I have heard the submissions so made across the bar and perused the record. 7. Apparently the allegations in the complaint is that a cheque stood drawn for an amount of Rs.20 lac which was dishonoured followed by a statutory demand notice. Learned counsel for the applicant could not point out any procedural infirmity under section 138 read with Section 142 of N.I. Act. The question as to whether the cheque was misutilised is a question of fact which would have bearing only when the trial commences and since the stage whereof has not arisen, thus, at the summoning stage, this Court is not required to delve into the factual aspect. Moreover, presumption U/s 139 of N.I. Act is in favour of the holder. 8. Accordingly, no ground is made to interfere in the present application and is hereby rejected. Order Date :- 17.5.2025 C. MANI ( Vikas Budhwar,J.) Digitally signed by :- CHANDRAMANI VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Digitally signed by :- CHANDRAMANI VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad