HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 36436 of 2025 Court No. - 75 HON'BLE VIKAS BUDHWAR, J. 1. Heard Sri Manoj Kumar, learned counsel for the applicant as well as Sri Vikas Sharma, learned State Law Officer for the State. 2. This is an application under Section 528 of BNSS preferred by the applicant for quashing the Complaint Case No. 1644 of 2024 (Ashish Interprises Versus Rajpal), U/s 138 N.I. Act, Police Station Kotwali, District Bareilly as well as impugned summoning order dated 05.04.2024 passed by Learned Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 3, Bareilly. 3. The case of the applicant is that a complaint stood lodged on 12.06.2019 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 a liability, the applicant herein had drawn a cheque bearing number "000003" dated 26.04.2019 for an amount Rs.4,00,000/-, which on presentation in the bank on 01.05.2019 came to be dishonoured on 02.05.2019 followed by a statutory demand notice dated 14.05.2019, served upon the applicant and the same was replied on 01.6.2019 and on 12.06.2019, complaint under Section 138 of N.I. Act came to be filed and thereafter, the applicant came to be summoned on 05.04.2024 under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that even in fact, post lodging of the said complaint, a first information report under Section 471, 468, 467, 420 IPC came to be lodged on 11.07.2019 being FIR No.0800, wherein reference of the cheque has been given. Learned counsel for the applicant has further invited the attention towards para-14 of the application so as to contend that there Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Manoj Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Raj Pal .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Opposite Party(s) happened to be an agreement entered into between the applicant and O.P. No.2 whereby applicant had offered a piece of land, value whereof is Rs.13,00,000/- and the applicant had issued cheques worth Rs.12,00,000/- and Rs.1,00,000/- was given in cash. However, when it was discovered that the plot in question, which was sought to be transferred by the O.P. No.2 in favour of the applicant was not owned by the O.P. No.2, then the applicant got the payment stopped, even otherwise the submission of the learned counsel for the applicant is that there happens to be a first information report lodged by the Junior Engineer, of Bareilly Development Authority against the O.P. No.2 and others with regard to playing of fraud. Learned counsel for the applicant has also invited attention of the Court towards page-81 of the paper-book, so as to contend that there happens to be a compromise, but the same contains incorrect recital that fraud has been played. Learned counsel for the applicant thus submits that there is no legal enforceable debt or liability so as to invoke the provisions contained under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. 4. Learned State Law Officer 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. 5. I have heard the submissions so made across the Bar and perused the record. 6. Apparently, with respect to dishonouring of a cheque of Rs.4,00,000/-, a complaint stood lodged. On a pointed query being raised to the learned counsel for the applicant whether there is any technical infraction of the provisions contained under Section 138 read with Section 142 of N.I. Act, the answer is in negative. In so far as the contention so sought to be raised by learned counsel for the applicant that the land in question which was sought to be sold against which a cheque was drawn, the title is under cloud, thus no legal debt or liability is made out, in the opinion of the Court, the same is a subject matter a defence, consideration whereof is required, once the trial commences. Moreover, it is admitted to the applicant that the FIR had been lodged subsequently and the complaint had been lodged earlier. Moreover, presumption under Section 139 of N.I. Act is there. 7. Accordingly, interference is declined. The application is disposed of NA528 No. 36436 of 2025 2 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 22, 2025 N.S.Rathour NA528 No. 36436 of 2025 3 (Vikas Budhwar,J.) Digitally signed by :- NIPENDRA SINGH RATHOUR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad