JUDGMENT

Rajiv Gupta, J.

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

2. The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the NBW order dated 19.10.2022 as well as entire criminal proceedings of Complaint Case No. 715 of 2019 (Qamar Ali v. Amzad Khan), under section 138 of N.I. Act, P.S. Kotwali, District- Jhansi, pending in the court of Civil Judge (Senior Division)/Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jhansi.

3. As per the allegations made in the complaint, it is alleged that the applicant had issued a Cheque No. 824518 dated 08.10.2018 for a sum of Rs.1,05,000/- to Opposite Party No.2, however, on presentation of the said cheque, the same was dishonoured by the bank and returned back. After the dishonour of the cheque, a notice was sent to the applicant to make good the payment however, despite being noticed the due amount was not paid as such, the present complaint under section 138 of N.I. Act has been instituted against the applicant.

4. Learned Magistrate on the basis of allegation made in the complaint and after making the requisite enquiry under Sections 200 and 202 CrPC, has summoned the applicant to face trial under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act vide order dated 27.05.2019 and thereafter despite issuance of summoning order, when the applicant has not appeared before the court below, non-bailable warrant dated 19.10.2022 has also been issued against him.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that no due debt or liability exists in respect of the payment of the said cheque amount, therefore, proceedings under section 138 of N.I. Act cannot be drawn against the applicant.

6. Per contra, learned A.G.A. has submitted that learned Magistrate on the basis of allegation made in the complaint and after making the requisite enquiry under Sections 200 and 202 CrPC, has summoned the applicant to face trial under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act vide order dated 27.05.2019 and when the applicant had not appeared before the court below, then non-bailable warrant dated 19.10.2022 has also been issued against him

7. Learned AGA has further submitted that disputed question of existence of due debt or liability cannot be considered at this stage when the evidence is yet to come and has further pointed out that there is a legal rebuttable presumption under section 139 of the N.I. Act against the applicant, as such impugned non-bailable warrant is just, proper and legal and do not call for any interference by this Court. There is absolutely no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order.

8. Having considered the rival submissions made by the counsel for the parties and taking into consideration that the learned Magistrate on the basis of allegation made in the complaint and the statements recorded under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C, has summoned the applicant to face trial and when despite issuance of summoning order, the applicant has not appeared before the court below, then non-bailable warrant dated 19.10.2020 has also been issued against him, as such, it cannot be said that there is any illegality or error of law in summoning as well as in issuing the non-bailable warrant dated 19.10.2022 against the applicant to face trial under section 138 of N.I. Act. Moreover, disputed question of existence of due debt or liability cannot be considered at this stage when the evidence is yet to come and there is a legal rebuttable presumption under section 139 of the N.I. Act in favour of the holder of the cheque. In view thereof, I am of the considered opinion that the impugned order is just, proper and legal and do not call for any interference at this stage.

9. Th