Suneeta Devi Pal v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC18 Jul 2025NA528/19559/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

S.528 BNSS quashing application; S.138 NI Act complaint; cheque dishonour; statutory demand notice; summoning order dated 30.09.2024 by A.C.J.M. Room No. 5 Prayagraj; Complaint No. 44/2024 Ajay Singh v. Suneeta Devi Pal; P.S. Jhunsi; S.139 NI Act presumption; reason of dishonour / misutilisation of cheque is matter of trial; counsel claims (cheques lost, housewife, land transactions) deferred to trial; judicial interference declined; application disposed of; liberty to seek remedies under the Act; Allahabad High Court; Vikas Budhwar, J.; 2025:AHC:117317.

What did the court decide?

Prayer to quash declined — no relief granted; applicant left open to take legal recourse to remedies available under the Act. ¶¶13

Suneeta Devi Pal vs State of U.P. and Another — Cheque Dishonour | Allahabad HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Prayer to quash declined — no relief granted; applicant left open to take legal recourse to remedies available under the Act.

¶¶13

Issue for consideration

Extent of judicial intervention warranted — whether the summoning order dated 30.09.2024 of the A.C.J.M. and the pending criminal proceedings in Complaint No. 44 of 2024 under S. 138 NI Act should be quashed.

¶¶12

Court's answer

Whether the reason for dishonour of the cheques was their misutilisation is a matter of trial, not a ground for pre-trial judicial intervention.

¶¶12

Ratio / Principle

The presumption under S. 139 of the N.I. Act would operate in the proceedings; accordingly the arguments raised are matters for trial.

¶¶12

Key takeaways

Judicial interference is declined and the application stands disposed of.ratio¶¶13
The applicant is left at liberty to take recourse to the legal remedy available under the Act.ratio¶¶14

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Vikas Budhwar, J.) — Order dated 18.7.2025; Application U/S 528 BNSS No. 19559 of 2025 (Neutral Citation 2025:AHC:117317); Suneeta Devi Pal v. State of U.P. and Another. The applicant sought quashing of the N.I. Act order dated 30/09/2024 passed by A.C.J.M., Court Room No. 5, District Prayagraj, whereby she was summoned in Complaint No. 44/2024 (Ajay Singh v. Smt. Suneeta Devi Pal), P.S. Jhunsi, District Prayagraj, under S. 138 NI Act, and of the entire criminal proceedings therein. Counsel for the applicant urged that the cheques stood lost, that the applicant is a housewife, and that the alleged land-related transactions had no basis; the AGA countered that these were matters of trial under the S. 139 presumption. The Court framed the sole question as the extent of judicial intervention and held that, the cheques having stood drawn with a statutory demand notice and complaint ensuing, whether dishonour arose from misutilisation of the cheque is a question of trial in which the S. 139 presumption operates. Interference was accordingly declined and the application disposed of, leaving the applicant free to pursue remedies available under the Act.

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:117317

¶2

Court No. - 75

¶3

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 19559 of 2025

¶4

Applicant :- Suneeta Devi Pal Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Vinod Kumar Maurya Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Vikas Budhwar,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Vinod Kumar Maurya, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Moti Lal, learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶7

This application under Section 528 BNSS has been filed by the applicant to quash the quashed the N.I.Act order dated 30/09/2024, passed by A.C.J.M. Room no. 5 district Prayagraj in complaint no 44/2024 (Ajay singh versus Smt. Suneeta devi pal Police Station Jhunsi District Prayagraj as well as quash the entire criminal proceeding of complaint case no 44 of 2024 (Ajay singh versus Smt. Suneeta Devi Pal, Under section 138 NI act Police Station Jhunsi, District Prayagraj, which is pending in the court of A.C.J.M. Room no 5 district Prayagraj.

¶8

3.Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that a complaint was lodged by the opposite party no. 2 under Section 138 of the N.I. Act on 07.05.2024 with an allegation that two cheques were sought to be issued which on presentation in the Bank, which was dishonoured followed by a statutory demand notice and the applicant came to be summoned under Section 138 of the N.I. Act on 30.09.2024. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the summoning order cannot be sustained for the simple reason that the cheques stood lost and the applicant happens to be the housewife and the theory so sought to be propounded in the

¶9

complaint with relation to the certain transactions relatable to the land, has no basis.

¶10

Learned AGA on the other hand submits that whatever arguments, are being raised, are subject matter of trial and presumption under Section 139 of the N.I. Act would be there.

¶11

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the records.

¶12

The sole question which arises for determination in the present proceedings is to the extent of judicial intervention. Apparently, the cheques stood drawn, followed by a statutory demand notice and the complaint and the applicant came to be summoned under Section 139 of the N.I. Act. The question as to whether what was the reason of dishonour of a cheque, being miss-utilization of the cheque, is a question of trial. The presumption under Section 139 of the N.I. Act would be there.

¶13

Accordingly, the interference is declined, the application stands disposed of .

¶14

Leaving it open to the applicant to take legal recourse to the remedy as available under the Act.

¶15

Order Date :- 18.7.2025 A. Prajapati

¶16

Digitally signed by :- ASHUTOSH KUMAR PRAJAPATI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Suneeta Devi Pal v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Suneeta Devi Pal v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Aruna Devi vs Shri Dinesh Kumar, Tehsildar Tehsil Bikapur Distt. Ayodhya

Ram Niwas vs State of U.P. and Another

Sangeeta Gupta vs State of U.P. and Another

Pioneer Gold Hybrid Seeds Pvt. Ltd. through Director Sri Chetan Malik and Another vs State of U.P. and Another

Kailash Rajbhar vs State of U.P. and Another

Sumit and 3 Others vs State of U.P. and 3 Others