HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 18624 of 2026 Court No. - 74 HON'BLE DEEPAK VERMA, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant; learned A.G.A for the State as also perused the record. 2. Instant application has been filed to quash the summoning order dated 07.03.2026 as well as entire criminal proceedings of Complaint Case No. 25592/2024 [Suresh Chaudhary Vs. Mula), under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act, Police Station Trans Yamuna, District Agra, pending in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 05, Agra. 3. Counsel for the applicant submits that applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. As per complaint, the applicant borrowed Rs.4 lakh from the opposite party no. 2 in the year 2023, thereafter the applicant issued a cheque No.557137 of Rs.4 lakh dated 26.08.2024 in favour of opposite party no. 2 and he put the thumb impression which was found not matched and the cheque issued by the applicant was dishonoured. Thereafter, the learned Magistrate issued notice before taking cognizance against the applicant under Proviso to Clause 1 of Section 223 of BNSS. The applicant filed objection and while issuing summons, objection of the applicant has not been considered and learned Magistrate in arbitrary manner issued notice. 4. Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer for quashing the proceedings of the aforesaid case and has submitted that the order impugned do not suffer from any illegality or infirmity. Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Hitesh Pachori Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Mula .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Opposite Party(s) 5. From perusal of the impugned order, it is apparent that the learned Magistrate has passed the said order after perusing the material evidence on record. The order impugned is just and proper and impugned order does not suffer from any illegality and infirmity. The cognizance and summoning by the court concerned is based upon material evidence available on record. The objection of the applicant with regard to non consideration by the learned Magistrate cannot be considered as notice issued to the applicant under Proviso to Clause 1 of Section 223 of BNSS was not mandatory in view of the judgment of Apex Court in Sanjabij Tari Vs. Kishore S. Borcar and another 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2069. The allegation alleged in the complaint in view of Section 139 of N.I. Act, it will be presumed against the applicant. On perusal of complaint, it is apparent that the applicant borrowed money in the year 2023 and to return that amount, issued present disputed cheque and same was dishonoured on account of mismatch of thumb impression. Prima facie, offence is made out against the applicant. The objection raised by the applicant before the learned Magistrate can be considered in the later stage after appearance before the court in pursuance of summoning order. Before issuance of summons, the learned Magistrate has to see whether prima facie offence is made out or not. The submission raised by counsel for the applicant cannot be examined at this stage. No interference is warranted at this stage. 6. 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 raise its defense in the trial. NA528 No. 18624 of 2026 2 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. 17. 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 criminal process is not merited."" NA528 No. 18624 of 2026 3 7. 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." 8. In view of the Apex Court's Judgment, no interference is warranted by this Court. The present application is, accordingly, dismissed. 9. However, the applicant has remedy to raise objection before the learned court. If the applicant raise objection before the concerned court, the same shall be considered and decided, in accordance with law. May 6, 2026 Meenu Singh NA528 No. 18624 of 2026 4 (Deepak Verma,J.) Digitally signed by :- MEENU SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad