HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 33783 of 2025 Court No. - 75 HON'BLE VIKAS BUDHWAR, J. 1. Heard Sri Pankaj Sahni, learned counsel for the applicants as well as Sri J.P. Gupta, learned AGA for the State. 2. This application u/s 528 of BNSS has been preferred to quash the entire proceeding as well as summoning order dated 28.02.2024 passed in Complaint Case No. 11838 of 2023 (Smt. Sarla Yadav Vs. Harsh Vardhan) u/s 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act 1881. P.S.-Civil Line District-Meerut, pending in the court of additional chief judicial Magistrate Court no. 5 District-Meerut. 3. The case of the applicants is that on 19.05.2023 a complaint stood lodged by the opposite party no. 2 against the applicants under Section 138 of the NI Act with an allegation that the applicants herein with respect to discharge of his liability had drawn cheque of an amount of Rs. 60,000/- dated 17.02.2023 bearing no. 842120 which on presentation in the bank came to be dishonored on 23.03.2023 followed by a statutory demand notice dated 19.04.2023 and the complaint under Section 138 of the NI Act on 19.05.2023 and the applicant came to be summoned on 28.02.2024. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that there is no legally enforceable debt or liability so as to implicate the applicant under Section 138 of the NI Act as there was no business or personal relationship with the opposite party no. 2. 4. Learned State Law Officer, on the other hand, submits that once the cheque stood drawn and the same stood dishonored then the presumption under Section 139 would be there. 5. I have heard the submission so made across the bar and perused the Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Pankaj Sahni, Pawan Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Harsh Vardhan And Another .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Opposite Party(s) record. 6. The sole question which arises for determination is the extent of judicial intervention at this stage. Apparently, a cheque stood drawn which has been dishonored followed by a statutory demand notice and the complaint has been preferred. The question whether the said cheque was actually drawn or not or there is any legally enforceable debt or liability is a question of trial which cannot be gone into at this stage when the summoning order is subject matter of challenge, moreover, presumption under Section 139 would be there. 7. Accordingly, interference is declined, the application stands disposed of leaving it open for the applicant to take all legal and factual contentions while contesting the proceedings. September 4, 2025 Rajesh NA528 No. 33783 of 2025 2 (Vikas Budhwar,J.) Digitally signed by :- RAJESH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad