HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 10435 of 2026 Court No. - 74 HON'BLE DEEPAK VERMA, J. 1. Supplementary affidavit, filed today, is taken on record. 2. Heard Sri Ravi Kumar Dubey, learned counsel for the applicant and learned AGA for the State. 3. The present 528 BNSS application has been filed to quash the impugned Summoning order dated 12.01.2026 passed by Learned Civil Judge (S.D.)/F.T.C., Chitrakoot as well as entire proceeding in Complaint Case No. 4036 of 2025 (Vijay Prakash Tripathi vs. Smt. Lata Devi Soni) under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act at Police Station Karwi, District Chitrakoot, pending in the court of Learned Civil Judge (S.D.)/F.T.C., Chitrakoot. 4. Counsel for the applicant submits that it is alleged in the complaint that applicant on promise to sell his property to opposite party no.2 took Rs.60 lacs but the applicant sold the property to some other person, when complainant asked to return his money then applicant issued two cheques, bearing Nos.000050 and 000052, and when the same were presented before Bank on 16.07.2025, the same got dishonoured/returned on 17.07.2025 with remark "Payment stopped by drawer", thereafter, complainant sent registered/statutory demand notice to applicant, which was served on 26.07.2025 and the present complaint was lodged on 08.08.2025. He further submits that instant complaint has been lodged with malice intention. Prima facie, no offence under the alleged section is made out. The disputed cheques have been lost somewhere and in this Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Rajiv Dwivedi, Ravi Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Smt. Lata Devi Soni .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Opposite Party(s) regard applicant had registered a complaint in the concerned police station. U/s 223 BNSS notice was issued to the applicant and applicant appeared before trial court and filed objection but trial court without considering the objection, issued summon. Cognizance and summoning by learned Magistrate is without application of judicial mind. 5. Per contra, learned A.G.A. opposed the submission raised by applicant's counsel. 6. Considering the argument raised by applicant's counsel, the submission raised by applicant's counsel is disputed question of facts which cannot be examined at this stage. Moreover, it is admitted case that the applicant took Rs.60 lacs from complainant to sell his property and in default, applicant issued disputed cheques and signed over the cheques, which got dishonoured, thereafter, statutory demand notice was served upon applicant and applicant filed objection before trial court where applicant has not disputed signature over the cheque. Learned Magistrate considered the objection of the applicant and also averment regarding lost of cheques. On perusal of complaint and other material evidence, prima facie, offence U/s 138 of N.I. Act is made out against the applicant. The order dated 12.01.2026 passed by Learned Civil Judge (S.D.)/F.T.C., Chitrakoot in Complaint Case No. 4036 of 2025, under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act at Police Station Karwi, District Chitrakoot, is just and proper. No interference is warranted. 7. The Hon. Apex Court in Sri Om Sales Vs. Abhay Kumar @ Abhay Patel and Another reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2897 has considered following judgments: "14. In Maruti Udyog Ltd. v. Narender and others, this Court held that a presumption must be drawn that the holder of the cheque received the cheque of the nature referred to in Section 138, for the discharge of any debt or other liability unless the contrary is proved and, therefore, the High Court was not justified in entertaining and accepting the plea of the accused at the initial stage of the proceedings and quash the complaint. 15. Likewise, in Rangappa v. Sri Mohan, it was held that the presumption mandated by Section 139 of the N.I. Act includes the existence of a legally enforceable debt or liability. It was observed that such a presumption is rebuttable, and the accused must NA528 No. 10435 of 2026 2 raise its defense in the trial. 16. In Rajeshbhai Muljibhai Patel v. State of Gujarat, it was held that the High Court should not quash the criminal complaint under Section 138 of N.I. Act by going into disputed questions of fact regarding the cheque in question being issued for the discharge of debt or liability. Moreso, when Section 139 of the N.I. Act raises a statutory presumption as regards the cheque being issued for discharge of debt or liability." 8. In Rathish Babu Unnikrishnan v. State (NCT of Delhi), this Court held that when there is a legal presumption under Section 139 of N.I. Act, it would not be judicious to carry out a detailed enquiry on a disputed question of fact at a pre-trial stage to quash the complaint. The relevant observations in the judgment are extracted below: "17. The proposition of law as set out above makes it abundantly clear that the court should be slow to grant the relief of quashing a complaint at a pre-trial stage, when the factual controversy is in the realm of possibility particularly because of the legal presumption, as in this matter. What is also of note is that the factual defense without having to adduce any evidence need to be of an unimpeachable quality, so as to altogether disprove the allegations made in the complaint. 18. The consequences of scuttling the criminal process at a pretrial stage can be grave and irreparable. Quashing proceedings at preliminary stages will result in finality without the parties having had an opportunity to adduce evidence and the consequence then is that the proper forum i.e., the trial court is ousted from weighing the material evidence. If this is allowed, the accused may be given an unmerited advantage in the criminal process. Also, because of the legal presumption, when the cheque and the signature are not disputed by the appellant, the balance of convenience at this stage is in favor of the complainant / prosecution, as the accused will have the opportunity to adduce defense evidence during the trial, to rebut the presumption. 19. Situated thus, to non-suit the complainant, at the stage of the summoning order, when the factual controversy is yet to be canvassed and considered by the trial court will not in our opinion be judicious. Based upon a prima facie impression, an element of criminality cannot entirely be ruled out here subject to the determination by the trial court. Therefore, when the proceedings are at a nascent stage, scuttling of the NA528 No. 10435 of 2026 3 criminal process is not merited." 9. The Hon. Apex Court while deciding aforementioned case, in paragraphs 13 and 18 has observed that: "13. However, the High Court, in its jurisdiction under Section 482, proceeded to test whether the cheque was issued for the discharge, in whole or in part, of any debt or other liability. In our view, such an exercise was unwarranted because, under Section 139 of the N.I. Act, there is a presumption that the holder of a cheque received the cheque of the nature referred to in Section 138 for the discharge, in whole or in part, of any debt or other liability. This presumption can be rebutted by evidence led in trial. A fortiori, the said issue can appropriately be decided either at the trial, or later, upon conclusion of trial, by the appellate/ revisional court." "18. Having regard to the aforesaid decisions of this Court as also the provisions of Section 139 of the N.I. Act, we are of the considered view that the High Court committed an error by conducting a roving enquiry, at the pre-trial stage, as regards the cheque being issued for the discharge of debt or liability. Such an exercise, in our view, was not merited in exercise of power under Section 482 of the Code more so when the complaint allegations disclosed that the cheque was issued for discharge of liability. As fulfillment of the necessary ingredients of Section 138 N.I. Act are prima facie made out from the complaint allegations, in our view, neither the summoning order nor the complaint could have been quashed by the High Court at the pre-trial stage." 10. In view of the Apex Court's Judgment, no interference is warranted by this Court. The present application is, accordingly, dismissed. May 7, 2026 Nitin Verma NA528 No. 10435 of 2026 4 (Deepak Verma,J.) Digitally signed by :- NITIN KUMAR VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad