HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 35543 of 2025 Court No. - 75 HON'BLE VIKAS BUDHWAR, J. 1. Heard Sri Prateek Kumar learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Pankaj Srivastava, learned AGA for the State. 2. This is an application filed under Section 528 of the B.N.S.S. for quashing the summoning order dated 06.11.2023 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate/Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Court No. 5, Meerut in Complaint Case No. 27653 of 2022 (Saransh Obrai Vs Amardeep Wadhwa) Under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, Police Station Sadar Bazar District Meerut and judgment and order dated 05.08.2025 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 10, Meerut in Criminal Revision No. 267 of 2025 (Amardeep Wadhwa Vs Saransh Obrai and another) alongwith the entire proceedings of Complaint Case No. 27653 of 2022 (Saransh Obrai Vs Amardeep Wadhwa) Under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, Police Station Sadar Bazar, District Meerut pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate-II, Meerut. 3. The case of the applicant is that a complaint was lodged by the opposite party no.2 against the applicant under Section 138 of the N.I. Act with an allegation that with respect to discharge of a liability the applicant herein had drawn a cheque bearing no.131196 dated 25.10.2022 of Rs.6,00,000/- which on presentation in the bank came to be dishonoured on 4.11.2022, a statutory demand notice came to be issued on 16.11.2022 and a complaint under Section 138 of the N.I. Act and the applicant came to be summoned on 6.11.2023 against which a revision came to be preferred which was rejected Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Ashutosh Singh, Prateek Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Amardeep Wadhwa .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Opposite Party(s) on 5.8.2025. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the summoning order cannot be sustained for the simple reason that the said cheque of Rs.6,00,000/-which is stated to have been dishonoured is a security cheque as he seeks to invite the attention of the Court towards page 47 of the paper book relevant extract at page 47A of the paper book wherein it is handwritten loan to Shakir, security cheque given to Sh Vijay Oberoi on 23.4.2019. He has further submitted that already a complaint had been lodged by Vijay Oberoi against Shakir Ali with respect to dishonour of a cheque of Rs.5,00,000/- and in order to act as a security the present security cheque has been issued which does not answer the description of debt and liability so as to contend the provisions under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. 5. Learned AGA on the other hand submits that once the cheques stood drawn then the presumption under Section 139 of the N.I.Act. 6. I have heard the submissions so made across the bar and perused the record carefully. 7. Apparently, the allegation in the present complaint is with regard to dishonouring of a cheque whether the cheque is a security cheque or not is a question which is a subject matter of trial as this Court at the stage of summoning is not required to go into the factual issue though it is the contention of the applicant that in the back portion of the cheque the same has been shown to be handwritten as security cheque but the same it is a mixed question of facts and law which needs to be adjudicated when the trial commences. 8. As regards the submission so made by the learned counsel for the applicant that the said cheque was by way of security and it does not answer the description of debt or liability is concerned. Suffice it to say that the same is a subject matter of trial as held in M/s Womb Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. vs Vijay Ahuja 2022 (18) SCC 631 and in Sunil Todi vs. the State of Gujarat 2022 (16) SCC 762. With respect to the submission made by the learned counsel for the applicant no outstanding dues which was required to be paid is concerned, the same is at best a defence consideration whereof would be necessitated if raised during the trial and not at the stage of NA528 No. 35543 of 2025 2 summoning, moreover, the presumption under Section 139 of the NI Act is there. 9. Accordingly, interference is declined. Application stands disposed of leaving it open to the applicant to raise all legal and factual issues before the court below while contesting the trial and this Court has no reasons to disbelieve that the same shall be considered in accordance with law. September 16, 2025 piyush NA528 No. 35543 of 2025 3 (Vikas Budhwar,J.) Digitally signed by :- PIYUSH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad