HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 35695 of 2025 Court No. - 75 HON'BLE VIKAS BUDHWAR, J. 1. Heard Sri R.K. Patel, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Pankaj Kumar 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 17.07.2025, passed in Complaint Case No. 01 of 2025 (Rambha Singh Vs. Bindresh Kumar Maurya), under section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881, Police Station-Mungra Badshahpur, District-Jaunpur, passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-Fourth, Jaunpur. 3. The case of the applicant is that a complaint was lodged under Section 138 of the N.I. Act against the applicant by the opposite party no.2 with an allegation that the applicant and opposite party no.2 had business transaction and in order to discharge liability the applicant had drawn cheque bearing no.000039 of Rs.3,40,000/- dated 10.9.2024 which on presentation in the bank on 10.9.2024 came to be dishonoured and on assurance of the applicant the cheque was again represented on 4.11.2024 which came to be dishonoured on 5.11.2024 followed by a statutory demand notice dated 18.11.2024 and the applicant came to be summoned on 17.7.2025 under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that there is no legal enforceable debt or liability so as to invoke the provisions of Section 138 of the N.I. Act for the simple reason that page 71 of the paper book shows the subject cheque to be dated 13.4.2022 but interpolation and manipulation have been made while inviting attention towards page 29 of the paper book Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Ram Khelawan Patel Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Bindresh Kumar Maurya .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Opposite Party(s) so as to make it 10.9.2024. He has further submitted that it amounts to material alteration and aid has been taken to the provisions contained under Section 87 of the N.I. Act and reliance has also been placed upon the decision of the Bombay High Court in M/s Pinak Bharat and Company Vs. Anil Ramrao Naik 2022 LawSuit (Bom) 1921. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that once there happen to be material alteration then neither liability so accrues nor proceedings can be initiated under Section 138 of the N.I. Act and further while inviting attention towards annexure-7 it is being contended that payments have been made online to the opposite party no.2 and nothing remains due. 6. Learned AGA on the other hand submits that once the cheque stood drawn and it has been dishonoured then the presumption under Section 139 of the N.I. Act would be there. 7. I have heard the submissions so made across the bar and perused the record carefully. 8. Apparently, the allegation in the complaint with regard to dishonouring of a cheque followed by a representation on 4.11.2024 and statutory demand notice dated 18.11.2024. The question whether there had been material alteration in a cheque in view of Section 87 of the N.I. Act what would be relevant is that any material alteration of a negotiable instrument renders the same void and against one who is a party thereto at the time of making of such alteration and does not concern thereto unless it is made in order to carry out the common intention of the private party. 9. In the opinion of the Court though the learned counsel for the applicant takes aid to Section 87 of the N.I. Act while contending that there happens to be material alteration as well as the judgment of the Bombay of High in M/s Pinak Bharat and Company (supra) but these are the issues which are mixed question of facts and law which would be determined and the finding can be made when the trial commences when the stands of the opposite party no.2 before the Court. In M/s Pinak Bharat and Company (supra) the Bombay High Court was confronted with an order of acquittal but here in the present case this Court is occasioned with the challenge raised to the summoning order. NA528 No. 35695 of 2025 2 10. As regards the other contentions so sought to be raised by the learned counsel for the applicant that the entire payments have been made in the opinion of the Court they are the matter of defences consideration whereof would be required at a stage when the trial commences. 11. Moreover the presumption under Section 139 of the N.I. Act would be there. 12. Accordingly, interference is declined. Application stands disposed of leaving it open to the applicant to raise all legal and factual issues as well as issue with respect to the fact that the cheque being a security cheque does not answer the description of a dishonour of the cheque in the trial and the Court has no reasons to disbelieve that the same shall be considered in accordance with law. September 17, 2025 piyush NA528 No. 35695 of 2025 3 (Vikas Budhwar,J.) Digitally signed by :- PIYUSH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad