HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 34703 of 2025 Court No. - 75 HON'BLE VIKAS BUDHWAR, J. 1. Heard Shri Pramod Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri S.P. Singh, learned State Law Officer for the State. 2. This application under Section 528 BNSS has been filed by the applicant to quash the order dated 30.11.2024 passed by Judicial Magistrate /Additional Civil Judge (J.D.), Court No.1, Meerut in Complaint Case No. 485 of 2021 (Hanu Mittal Vs. Joni Tyagi) under Section 138 N.I. Act, Police Station Lalkurti, District Meerut. 3. The applicant herein had earlier approached to this Court by filing Application u/s 482 No.25823 of 2022 (Joni Tyagi Vs. State of U.P. and Another) in which on 15.11.2022 the following order was passed:- "Vakalatnama filed today by Sri Sudhir Kumar Kesarwani, Advocate on behalf of opposite party no. 2 is taken on record. Heard learned counsel for applicant, learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 as well as learned A.G.A. for State and perused the record. The present application has been filed by applicants with a prayer to quash the Complaint Case No. 485 of 2021 (Hanu Mittal Vs. Joni Tyagi), under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act, Police Station Lalkurti, District Meerut, pending in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 6, Meerut as well as summoning order dated 24.8.2021. It is submitted that in this case applicant has been summoned by the court concerned under section 138 N.I. Act on the basis of false and frivolous allegations made in the complaint. The applicant has not taken any money from the opposite party no. 2 but Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Pramod Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Joni Tyagi .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Opposite Party(s) false allegation has been made in this regard. The learned Magistrate has not considered all these facts and passed the order dated 24.8.2021, therefore, requested to quash the entire proceedings of the case with summoning order. Learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 as well as learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for quashing the aforesaid order and urged that in this case money was taken by the opposite party no. 2 for making repair of J.C.B. Machine which was returned to him through cheque which was dishonoured by the court concerned. Even after notice, he did not return the money that was the reason he filed a complaint. After considering the contents of the complaint, the cheque and statements of complainant as recorded by the court concerned the order in question has been passed which cannot be said to be unlawful. Hence this application being devoid of merit is liable to be dismissed. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for parties and perusal of record, it appears that the cheque signed by the applicant was handed over to the complainant which was got dishonoured by the bank on account of insufficient money in the account regarding which complainant gave a notice to the applicant but he did not return the money as a result he filed a complaint in which applicant was summoned by the court concerned vide order dated 24.8.2021. There appears no illegality or impropriety in the order impugned. There is an option to the applicant to move for discharge before the court concerned at appropriate stage with his submissions that will be considered on the basis of material on record. No any indulgence can be granted in favour of the applicant at this stage as there is no any ground to quash the entire proceedings of this case. Accordingly, the present application is disposed of finally. " 4. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that applicant had preferred a discharge application which came to be rejected on 30.11.2024. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that there is no legal debt and liablity so as to invoke the provision of Section 138 N.I. Act for the simple reason that the cheques stood misplaced and were misutilised. 5. While inviting the attention towards page 129 of the paper book it is contended that cheque was drawn by the applicant on behalf of Braham Dutt & Company but the company has not been arraigned as an accused. Thus, the complaint would not be maintainable. 6. State Law Officer for the State, on the other hand, submits that once the cheque had been dishourned presumption of Section 139 N.I. Act would be there. 7. I have heard the submissions so made across the bar and perused the NA528 No. 34703 of 2025 2 record carefully. 8. Apparently, on a pointed query being raised to the learned counsel for the applicant, whether the M/s Braham Dutt & Company is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 or the Companies Act, 2013. The answer in negative. Once, the position being so rigour of Section 141 of N.I. Act would not apply. 9. Recently, the Hon'ble Apex Court in Dhanasingh Prabhu Vs. Chandrasekar & another, Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 5706 of 2024 decided on 14.07.2025, it was held that there is no distinction or differences between the partners vis-a-vis the partnership firm. 10. As regards the submission that cheque would dishonour, thus, no debt or liability would arise cannot be considered at the stage of summoning as the same is subject matter of trial. Moreover, presumption under Section 139 of N.I. Act is there. 11. Accordingly, interference is declined, the applicant stands disposed of. 12. Leave it open for the applicant to raise legal and factual contentions. September 25, 2025 Imtiyaz NA528 No. 34703 of 2025 3 (Vikas Budhwar,J.) Digitally signed by :- IMTIYAZ AHMAD High Court of Judicature at Allahabad