BNSS No. 33972 of 2025 · Allahabad High Court

Heard Sri Dilip Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the applicant as well as Sri J.P. Gupta, learned AGA for the State.

This application u/s 528 of BNSS has been preferred to quash the impugned summoning order dated 17.5.2023 passed by learned Judge Additional Court Bijnor in Complaint case no. 3709 of 2020 its CNR No. UPBJO4007980/2020 (Parvej Ahmad Vs. Anil Kumar Dhangarh) under section 138 N.I. Act, Police Station Afzalgarh, District Bijnor (U.P.) whereby the learned Judge Additional Court Bijnor summoned the applicant fixing date 25.7.2023 for appearing the applicant before the court concerned.

The facts of the leading application are that a complaint was lodged by 2 NA528 No. 33972 of 2025 the opposite party no. 2 on 16.10.2020 against the applicant with an allegation that the brother of the complainant was intimate to applicant herein and with regard to the requirement of money, an amount of Rs. 7,50,000/- was advanced and the applicant herein had drawn two cheques and so far as the present cheque is concerned the same relates to cheque no. 009562 dated 24.04.2020 which on presentation in the bank on

18.06.2020 came to be dishonored on 18.08.2020 with the remark "dormant account" followed by a statutory demand notice dated

11.09.2020 and the complaint on 16.10.2020 and the applicant came to be summoned on 17.05.2023 under Section 138 of the NI Act.

As regards the connected application is concerned, the facts are the same wherein that the only description is with regard to cheque no. 009503 which on presentation in the bank on 07.07.2020 came to be dishonored on 18.08.2020 on the ground of mis-match of signatures followed by a statutory demand notice dated 11.09.2020 and a complaint on 16.10.2020 and the applicant came to be summoned on 17.05.2023 under Section 138 of the NI Act. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the summoning orders cannot be sustained for the simple reason that first of all there happen to be a partnership between the applicant and the opposite party no. 2 and with regard to a vehicle which was owned by the applicant that had been given to the opposite party no. 2 but the same was not returned. Further submission is that there is no legal debt or liability so as to invoke the provisions of Section 138 of the NI Act.

Learned AGA, on the other hand, submits that once a cheque stood drawn and it was dishonored then the presumption under Section 138 of the NI Act would be there.

I have heard the submissions so made across the bar and perused the record.

Apparently, with respect to dishonoring of two cheques in two separate complaints which emanated in filing of the present applications when the cheque stood dishonored then the complaint stood lodged. On a pointed query being raised to the learned counsel for the applicant whether there 3 NA528 No. 33972 of 2025 has been any procedural infirmity with regard to the compliance of the provisions contained under Section 138 and 142 of the NI Act, the answer is in negative. With respect to the argument so raised by the learned counsel for the applicant that the vehicle in question which has been taken by the opposite party no. 2 has not been returned, thus, there is no legal debt or liability is concerned, the same at best is a matter of defence consideration whereof would be required only when the trial commences. Moreover, what would be relevant is the issuance of the cheque and the dishonor of the same and the applicability of the provisions contained under Section 139 of the NI Act being presumption in favour of the holder of the instrument.

Accordingly, interference is declined, the application stands disposed of leaving it open for the applicant to contest the trial taking all legal and factual issues. September 23, 2025 Rajesh (Vikas Budhwar,J.) RAJESH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad