HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 36982 of 2025 Court No. - 75 HON'BLE VIKAS BUDHWAR, J. 1. Heard Sri Brahma Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel for the applicant as well as Sri J.P. Gupta, learned AGA for the State. 2. This is an application under Section 528 of BNSS preferred by the applicant for quashing the entire criminal proceeding as well as summoning order dated 11.7.2023 & N.B.W. dated on 18.2.2024 and under section 82 cr.p.c. dated on 17.5.2024 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate Court No. 4, Prayagraj of Complaint Case No.758 of 2023 (Shiv Lochan Upadhyay Vs Rahul Dwivedi), under Section 138 N.I. Act, P.S. Civil Lines, District Prayagraj, pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate court no.4, Prayagraj. 3. The case of the applicant is that on 24.3.2023 a complaint stood lodged by the O.P. No.2 under Section 138 of N.I. Act against the applicant with an allegation that with respect to discharge of the liability the applicant herein had drawn a cheque bearing no.000017 of Rs.10,00,000/- dated 27.02.2023 which on presentation in the bank on 28.02.2023 came to be dishonoured on 1.3.2023 followed by a statutory demand notice came to be issued on 6.3.2023 and a complaint was filed under Section 138 of the N.I. Act on24.3.2023 and the applicant came to be summoned on 11.7.2023. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that though the cheque is in the signature of the applicant but the same was a blank cheque but the opposite party no.2 had filled up the same in figures and words. He has further submitted that even a first information report came to be lodged by Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Brahma Kumar Tiwari Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Rahul Dwivedi .....Applicant(s) State Of U.P. And Another .....Opposite Party(s) the applicant being FIR No.0164 against the opposite party no.2 on 10.8.2023, under Sections 506, 504, 420, 406 IPC and while inviting attention towards page 58 of the paper book being the statement of the opposite party no.2 it is being contended that the opposite party no.2 has himself come up with stand that he had received certain amounts to the tune of Rs.30,500/- and Rs.80,000/-. He has also submitted that thus the entire payments have been made and there is no question of any liability regarding pay-ability in this regard. 5. Learned AGA on the other hand submits that once the cheque stood drawn and it was dishonoured that the presumption under Section 139 of the N.I. Act would be there. 6. I have heard the submissions so made across the Bar and perused the record carefully. 7. Apparently, the complaint is with relation to dishonouring of a cheque of Rs.10,00,000/- On a pointed query being raised to the learned counsel for the applicant whether there has been any technical infraction/procedural infirmity with regard to the provisions contained under Section 138 read with Section 142 of the N.I. Act the answer is negative. 8. As regards the submission of the learned counsel for the applicant that the figures of the said cheque is not in the hands of the applicant is a question which is a subject matter of trial consideration whereof would be required when the trial commences. With regard to the contention so raised by the learned counsel for the applicant that already a first information report stood lodged wherein there happens to be a statement of the opposite party no.2 regarding the fact that Rs.10,00,000/- has been advanced by the opposite party no.2 to the applicant and certain amount being Rs.80,000/-etc. was paid is a question which has been very well raised at trial particularly when there is nothing on record to show that the said amount was paid within the date of drawing of cheque and before its maturity so as to invoke provisions contained under Section 56 of the N.I. Act so as to claim that the part payment has been made so on the date when the cheque stood matured and dishonoured the total amount was not the amount due. 9. Moreover the presumption under Section 139 of the N.I. Act would be NA528 No. 36982 of 2025 2 there. 10. Accordingly, interference is declined. The application is disposed of leaving it open to the applicant to contest the proceedings before the court below while taking all the legal and factual grounds and this Court has no reason to disbelieve that the court below shall consider the same in correct perspective. September 24, 2025 piyush NA528 No. 36982 of 2025 3 (Vikas Budhwar,J.) Digitally signed by :- PIYUSH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad