Amit Maurya vs State of U.P. and Another

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 23717 of 2025

Amit Maurya

		.....Ap	plicant(s)
		Versus
State of U.P. and Another		.....	Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s)	:	Namit Srivastava, Vijay Upadhyay, Vishesh Upadhyay	Kumar
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)	:	G.A.
Court No.- 76

¶5

HON'BLE VIKRAM D. CHAUHAN, J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶7

This application has been filed for quashing the cognizance as well as summoning order dated 17..2024 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate III, Jaunpur along with entire proceedings of Case No.281 of 2023, Virendra Vs. Amit Maurya under Section 138 N.I. Act, Police Station Sarpatha, District Jaunpur.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the cheque in dispute was lost and in this respect, the applicant has filed a complaint before the bank on 10.5.2023. Thereafter, on 26.5.2023, an information was also given to the police in this regard. On 1.6.2023, a first information report was also lodged against the complainant for misuse of the cheque. The cheque in question was signed blank by the applicant and the aforesaid cheque has been lost, which has been misused by the complainant.

¶9

In the present case, it is to be seen that the question whether the cheque has been lost is a question of fact and is a matter of defence raised by the applicant.

¶10

The plea raised by the applicant in the present application are in the nature of defence of applicant-accused. The defence version of events would require a mini-trial. The defense evidence and arguments are meant to be presented and proved during the trial. It is now fairly settled that

¶11

NA528 No. 23717 of 2025

¶12

2

¶13

while exercising inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 BNSS or revisional jurisdiction under Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in a case where complaint is sought to be quashed, it is not proper for the this Court to consider the defence of the accused or embark upon an enquiry in respect of merits of the accusations. The nature of plea(s) raised by the applicant are essentially questions of fact and required appreciation of facts, which this court does not consider necessary to be considered at this stage as these facts are required to be proved by the applicant-accused before the trial court prior to the same being considered.

¶14

Section 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act provides that until the contrary is proved, the presumptions shall be made (a) of consideration:that every negotiable instrument was made or drawn for consideration, and that every such instrument, when it has been accepted, indorsed, negotiated or transferred, was accepted, indorsed, negotiated or transferred for consideration; (b) as to date:-that every negotiable instrument bearing a date was made or drawn on such date. Further, under section 139 of the said Act, it is provided that it shall be presumed, unless the contrary is proved, 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. The Supreme Court in Sanjabij Tari Vs Kishore S. Borcar and another - 2025 INSC 1158 has held that once the execution of cheque is admitted, the presumption under section 118 of the Negotiable Instrument Act that the cheque in question was drawn for consideration and the presumption under Section 139 of Negotiable Instrument Act that the holder of cheque received the cheque in discharge of a legally enforceable debt or liability arises against the accused. The presumption raised by law is rebuttable at the trial. At this stage this Court cannot override the statutory presumption.

¶15

In view of the aforesaid, the present application lacks merit and is, accordingly, dismissed.

¶16

(Vikram D. Chauhan,J.)

¶17

November 13, 2025

¶18

Bhaskar

¶19

Digitally signed by :- BHASKAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Amit Maurya v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Amit Maurya v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Chhotey Lal vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Reshpal vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Rakesh Kumar Tiwari and 5 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Rajesh Kumar vs State of U.P. and Another

Mukesh Kalyan vs State of U.P. and Another

Mukesh Kalyan vs State of U.P. and Another