HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 35140 of 2025 Court No. - 75 HON'BLE VIKAS BUDHWAR, J. 1. Heard Sri Ravindra Kumar Dwivedi, learned counsel for the applicant as well as Sri Pankaj Srivastava, learned AGA for the State. 2. This application u/s 528 of BNSS has been preferred to quash the impugned summoning order dated 21.11.2019 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Farrukhabad in Complaint Case No.1880 of 2019, (Pankaj Pandey Versus Km. Neha Bhadauriya), under Section 138 N.I. Act, Police Station Kotwali Farrukhabad, District Farrukhabad and the proceeding of Complaint Case No.1880 of 2019, under Section 138 N.I. Act, Police Station Kotwali Farrukhabad, District Farrukhabad, of Chief Judicial Pending in the Court Farrukhabad. 3. The case of the applicant is that a complaint stood preferred on 15.04.2019/17.05.2019 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. 466383 dated 13.03.2019 of an amount of Rs. 60,000/- which on presentation in the bank on 22.03.2019 came to be dishonored on 25.03.2019 a statutory demand notice came to be issued on 30.03.2025 and a complaint under Section 138 of NI Act on 15.04.2019/17.05.2019 and on 29.11.2019 the applicant came to be summoned under Section 138 of the NI Act. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the summoning order cannot be sustained for the simple reason that there is no legal debt or liability so as to attract the provisions of Section 138 of NI Act for the simple reason that the opposite party no. 2 was the lawyer who had been engaged by the applicant with relation to a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal case and the said case came to be allowed in favour of the applicant, Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Raj Mangal Tiwari, Ravindra Kumar Dwivedi Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Km. Neha Bhadauriya .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Opposite Party(s) however, for the disbursement of the amount, the applicant in order to give details had given a signed blank cheque which has been mis-utilized. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that no legal debt or liability stands arises. 4. Learned AGA, 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 determinatino is the extent of judicial intervention at this stage. Apparently, with respect to dishonoring of a cheque the complaint has been lodged. The question whether the cheque has been mis-utilized or it was not with respect to any debt or liability is a mixed question of facts and law which needs to be adjudicated is raised at the time when the trial commences. Moreover, presumption under Section 139 of the NI Act is there. 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. September 15, 2025 Rajesh NA528 No. 35140 of 2025 2 (Vikas Budhwar,J.) Digitally signed by :- RAJESH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad