HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 18846 of 2026 Court No. - 74 HON'BLE DEEPAK VERMA, J. 1. Heard Sri Manvendra Narain Pathak, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri P. P. Pandey, learned AGA for the State. 2. The present 528 BNSS application has been filed to quash the entire proceeding as well as impugned Summoning Order dated 02.04.2025 passed by the Court of Civil Judge (J.D.)/F.T.C.-II,/J.M. Gautam Buddha Nagar in Complaint Case No. 7763/2024, titled as R. R. Industries vs. Dish Division through proprietor Anil Kapoor, under Section 138 N.I. Act, whereby the Applicant Anil Kapoor, Proprietor of Dish Division, has been summoned to face trial under section 138 N. I. Act. 3. Counsel for the applicant submits that it is alleged in the complaint that applicant purchased optical fiber cable from complainant, for which applicant issued cheque in favour of opposite party No.2 of Allahabad Bank, which was merged three years before with other bank and when complainant presented the cheque before Bank the same got dishonored, thereafter, notice was served to the applicant but applicant did not pay the amount, then instant complaint has been lodged against the applicant. He further submits that applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case due to mala fide intention. Applicant had not issued cheque in favour of opposite party no.2, moreover, Allahabad High Court had already merged in another Bank and there is no occasion to issue cheque in favour of opposite party No.2. Cognizance and summoning by learned Magistrate is without application of judicial mind. Complaint is lodged by Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Manvendra Narain Pathak Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Anil Kapoor .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Opposite Party(s) limitation and without considering this fact, learned Magistrate issued summon. 4. Per contra, learned A.G.A. opposed the submission raised by applicant's counsel. 5. 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. From the complaint, it is apparent that applicant issued cheque of Allahabad Bank, bearing No.156966 of Rs.3 lacs dated 23.11.2023 and made signature over the cheque and when the cheque was presented before the Bank, the same got dishonoured. The act of the applicant appears to be mischievous as applicant intentionally issued the cheque of Allahabad Bank in favour of opposite party No.2. The allegation alleged in the complaint shall be considered against the applicant in view of Section 139 of N.I. Act. Prima facie, offence is made out against the applicant. The order dated 02.04.2025 passed by the Court of Civil Judge (J.D.)/F.T.C.-II,/J.M. Gautam Buddha Nagar in Complaint Case No. 7763/2024, under Section 138 N.I. Act, is just and proper. No interference is warranted. 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. 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 NA528 No. 18846 of 2026 2 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." 7. 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." 8. The Hon. Apex Court while deciding aforementioned case, in paragraphs 13 and 18 has observed that: NA528 No. 18846 of 2026 3 "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." 9. 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. 18846 of 2026 4 (Deepak Verma,J.) Digitally signed by :- NITIN KUMAR VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad