Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:42936 Court No. - 73 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 31572 of 2024 Applicant :- Mohd Raees And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Mohd. Shabbir,Mohd. Tasleem Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Vikas Budhwar,J. 1. Heard Mohd Shabbir, learned counsel for the applicants as well as Sri J.P. Gupta, learned AGA for the State. 2. This application u/s 482 of the Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the entire criminal proceedings arising out of Criminal Complaint Case No. 14779 of 2023 under Section 138 of NI Act (Arvind Chaudhary Vs. Mohd. Raees), P.S. Kotwali, District Muzaffarnagar, pending in the Court of learned Additional Judicial Magistrate, Muzaffarnagar. 3. Learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that a complaint stood lodged against the applicant by the opposite party no. 2 on 23.05.2022 relatable to withdrawal of an amount of Rs. 6,00,000/- and 5,00,000/- and advancing the same to the applicant and in turn when on 27.03.2023 a cheque stood issued/drawn by the applicant to the opposite party no. 2 on 27.03.2023 for an amount of Rs. 9,26,500/-, the same stood dishonored on account of account being closed. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that it is highly improbable and inconceivable that an amount of Rs. 11,00,000/- would be given in cash and further though the opposite party no. 2 might have withdrawn the said amount but the same was not tendered to the applicant and further he submits that in past also on 04.03.2022, a complaint Case No. 66 of 2022 stood lodged against the opposite party no. 2 by the applicant before the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Bahedi, Bareilly with regard to supplying of substantiated materials which resulted in losses substantiated. 4. Learned AGA submits that whatever arguments are being sought to be raised are in the matter of defences which cannot be gone into particularly when there is nothing on record that there has been any violation of any conditions precedent in Section 138 and Section 141 of the NI Act. 5. Having heard the arguments so made across the bar, the sole question which arises for determination is the extent of judicial intervention at this stage in the present proceedings, apparently, as per the arguments of the learned counsel for the applicant, the only argument so sought to be canvassed is regarding the fact that the applicant had not been advanced Rs. 11,00,000/- and he had not issued a cheque of Rs. 9,26,000/- and the said cheques stood misused by the opposite party no. 2. The said argument cannot be gone into at this present stage and the same is a matter of defence when the trial commences. In any view of the matter as per the complaint dated 24.03.2022 of the applicant against the opposite party no. 2, it is evident that there happens to be certain business transactions and whatever might be the facts and circumstances of the case do not warrant any interference particularly when the learned counsel for the applicant has not pointed out any jurisdictional error committed therein. 6. Accordingly, the application is rejected. Order Date :- 24.3.2025 Rajesh Digitally signed by :- RAJESH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad