Vijay Anand Prjapati Vs State of U.P. and Another

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 17399 of 2026

Vijay Anand Prjapati		.....Applicant(s)
	Versus
State of U.P. and Another		.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s)	:	Satya Prakash Chaturvedi
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)	:	G.A.

¶3

Court No. - 74

¶4

HON'BLE DEEPAK VERMA, J.

¶5

Heard counsel for the applicant and learned AGA for the State.

¶6

The present 528 B.N.S.S. application has been filed to quash the impugned summoning order dated 24.01.2024 passed by learned court of Civil Judge, C.D./F.T.C. Jalaun at Orai in Complaint Case No.9427 of 2023 (Aashish Mishra vs. Vijay Anand Prajapati), under Section 138 N.I.Act, Police Station Kotwali Orai, District Jalaun, pending before learned court of Civil Judge, C.D./F.T.C. Jalaun at Orai.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that present proceeding under section 138 N.I.Act is malice prosecution only to harass the applicant. Applicant never issued cheque in favour of opposite party no.2. Applicant is Assistant Teacher/Shiksha Mitra. Allegation made in the complaint is that applicant asked for a loan of Rs.7,00,000/- from the complainant/opposite party no.2 for his personal needs and promised to return it after sometime, on which the complainant gave Rs.7,00,000/- in cash to the applicant. The applicant gave a cheque signed by him to the complainant/opposite party no.2 and the said cheque deposited in the Bank to get the payment. On which the cheque was returned by the bank on 25.09.2023 with remark of 'Kindly contract Drawer, Drawee Bank and present again'. Then opposite party no.2 sent registered notice to the applicant which was returned by the applicant in collusion with the postman. It cannot be presumed that the applicant, who is Assistant Teacher can provide Rs.7,00,000/- cash. No whisper as to how he has collected huge amount of Rs.7,00,000/-. He next submitted that there is no mention in regard to service of registered notice sent by opposite party

¶8

NA528 No. 17399 of 2026

¶9

2

¶10

no.2 to the applicant, as such, prima-facie present complaint is not maintainable.

¶11

Per contra, learned A.G.A. opposed the submission raised by learned counsel for the applicant.

¶12

Considered the argument raised by learned counsel for the applicant and perused the record. From the complaint, it is apparent that the applicant after receiving information of Bank that cheque has been dishonoured and returned to the opposite party no.2, the opposite party no.2 informed the applicant through registered notice dated 11.10.2023 and same was returned in collusion with the postman. Prima-facie the condition for summoning the accused applicant is prima-facie made out as applicant endorsed the signature given to opposite party no.2 and then it was presented before the bank and same was returned by the Bank by registered post, notice was given to the applicant. Prima-facie offence is made out under aforesaid section and other submission raised by learned counsel for the applicant are disputed question of facts. Applicant has remedy to raise objection before trial court and same shall be considered and examined by the trial court. Cognizance and summoning by learned magistrate is just and proper.

¶13

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

"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 disputed questions of fact regarding the

¶17

NA528 No. 17399 of 2026

¶18

3

¶19

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.

¶20

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:

¶21

"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.

¶22

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.

¶23

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.""

¶24

The Hon. Apex Court while deciding aforementioned case, in paragraphs 13 and 18 has observed that:

¶25

"13. However, the High Court, in its jurisdiction under Section 482, proceeded to test whether the cheque was issued for the discharge, in

¶26

NA528 No. 17399 of 2026

¶27

4

¶28

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."

¶29

"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."

¶30

In view of the Apex Court's Judgment, no interference is warranted by this Court. The present application is, accordingly, dismissed.

¶31

April 29, 2026 SKD

¶32

(Deepak Verma,J.)

¶33

Digitally signed by :- SURJIT KUMAR DEY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Vijay Anand Prjapati v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vijay Anand Prjapati 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

Rajesh and 4 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Vishnu Kumar vs State of U.P. and Another

Jitendra Kumar vs State of U.P. and Another

Dr Munishwar Gupta vs State of U.P. and Another

Anil Kumar vs State of U.P. and Another

Vijay Anand Prjapati vs State of U.P. and Another