Salman Vs State of U.P. and Another — Cheque Dishonour | Allahabad HC (2025)

Salman Vs State of U.P. and Another — Cheque Dishonour | Allahabad HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

Issue for consideration

Extent of judicial intervention warranted at the summoning stage — whether the entire proceedings of Complaint Case No. 2255 of 2022 (Kesh Pal vs. Salman) under S.138 N.I. Act and the summoning order dated 26.02.2024 of ACJM, Kasganj ought to be quashed under S.528 BNSS. +1 more

Court's answer

Whether the cheque was misutilised or the applicant was not liable to pay the said amount is a question of trial; this Court is not required, at the stage of summoning, to go into those factual aspects.

Ratio / Principle

Presumption under S.139 N.I. Act is always in favour of the holder.

Key takeaways

Whatever arguments are sought to be raised are matters of defence, the stage of consideration whereof has not arrived till date.ratio¶13
No case is made out; the present application is hereby rejected.ratio¶13

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Vikas Budhwar J., decision dated 3.7.2025) dismissed Application U/S 482 No. 38024 of 2024, filed under S.528 BNSS by applicant Salman, seeking quashing of the entire proceedings of Complaint Case No. 2255 of 2022 (Kesh Pal vs. Salman) under S.138 N.I. Act (P.S. Sahawar, District Kasanj) and the summoning order dated 26.02.2024 of ACJM, Kasganj. The complaint, lodged by opposite party no. 2 on 26.09.2022/03.10.2022, alleged that the applicant drew cheque no. 992139 dated 22.07.2022 for Rs. 1,20,000/-, dishonoured on 25.08.2022, followed by a statutory demand notice of 07.09.2022; the applicant was summoned on 28.02.2024. Counsel for the applicant contended there was no legally enforceable debt or liability, pointing to a S.156(3) Cr.PC. proceeding lodged by the applicant's relative Smt. Phool Bano alleging the cheque was taken away and misutilised by opposite party no. 2; learned AGA responded that the presumption under S.139 N.I. Act subsists. Holding: whether the cheque was misutilised or the applicant was not liable is a question of trial, into which the Court need not go at the summoning stage; the presumption under S.139 N.I. Act is always in favour of the holder; the remaining arguments are matters of defence whose stage of consideration has not arrived. Accordingly, no case was made out and the application was rejected.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:105529

Court No. - 75

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 38024 of 2024

Applicant :- Salman Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Nirbhay Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

Hon'ble Vikas Budhwar,J.

Heard Sri Nirbhay Singh, learned counsel for the applicant as well as Sri Kripa Shankar, learned AGA for the State.

This is an application filed U/s 528 BNSS for quashing the entire proceeding of complaint case no. 2255 of 2022 (Kesh Pal vs. Salman) U/s 138 of N.I. Act, P.S. Sahawar, District Kasanj and also the summoning order dated 26.02.2024 passed by court of ACJM, Kasganj.

Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that a complaint was lodged by the opposite party no.2 on 26.09.2022/ 03.10.2022 against the applicant with an allegation that the applicant in discharge of his liability had drawn a cheque bearing no. 992139 dated 22.07.2022 of an amount of Rs. 1,20,000/- which came to be dishonoured on 25.08.2022. A statutory demand notice was issued on 07.09.2022 followed by the complaint and, thereafter, the applicant has been summoned U/s 138 of N.I. Act on 28.02.2024.

Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that one of the relative of the applicant being Smt. Phool Bano had lodged a proceeding U/s 156(3) Cr.PC. wherein narration of the fact regarding taking away of the cheque and misutilization by the opposite party no.2 was raised. He submits that there is no legal enforceable debt or liability so as to attract the provision of Section 138 of N.I. Act.

Learned AGA on the other hand submits that whatever might be the presumption U/s 139 of N.I. Act is always there.

Heard the submissions so made across the bar and after perusing the record carefully.

The sole question which arises for consideration is the extent of

judicial intervention at this stage. Apparently, a cheque stood drawn by the applicant which came to be dishonoured followed by a statutory demand notice and complaint. The question as to whether the cheque was misutilised or the applicant was not liable to pay the said amount is a question of trial in the facts and circumstances of the case and this Court is not required at the stage of summoning to go into of those factual aspects. Moreover, presumption U/s 139 of N.I. Act is always in favour of the holder. Apart from the same, whatever arguments are being sought to be raised are the matter of defences, stage of consideration whereof has not arrived till date. Accordingly, no case is made out and the present application is hereby rejected.

Order Date :- 3.7.2025 C. MANI

( Vikas Budhwar,J. )

Digitally signed by :- CHANDRAMANI VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad