JUDGMENT

Rajiv Gupta, J.

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

2. This application under Section 482 CrPC has been filed for quashing the summoning order dated 16.09.2021 and entire proceedings of Complaint Case No. 4 of 2021, (Ashrit Kumar v. Ashish Kumar Jaiswal), under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, Police Station Sarai Inayat, District Prayagraj, pending in the court of A.C.J.M., Court No.09, Allahabad.

3. As per the allegations made in the complaint, it is alleged that the applicant had issued a cheque no. 000140 dated 15.01.2021 for amount of Rs.8,85,000/- in favour of the opposite party no.2. On presentation of the said cheque before the Bank, it was dishonoured and the same was returned back.

4. After dishonour of the cheque, a legal notice was sent to the applicant to make good the payment of the cheque amount, however, despite being noticed, the applicant had not made good the payment of the cheque amount, as such, a complaint under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act has been filed by the opposite party no.2 against the applicant.

5. On the basis of the said complaint, learned Magistrate, after considering the allegations made in the complaint and making requisite enquiry under Sections 200 CrPC and 202 CrPC, has summoned the applicant to face trial under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act vide order dated 16.09.2021.

6. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that in fact, cheque, in question, has not been issued by the applicant himself and the account, from which the said cheque is said to have been issued, is not in the name of the applicant, as such, proceedings under Section 138 of Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:17772 Negotiable Instruments Act can not be initiated against the applicant.

7. Per contra, learned AGA has supported the impugned summoning order and has submitted that learned Magistrate, on the basis of the allegations made in the complaint and the statements of the witnesses recorded under Sections 200 and 202 CrPC, has rightly summoned the applicant.

8. Learned AGA has further submitted that the questions, if cheque has been issued by the applicant himself and that the account, from which the cheque has been issued, is not in the name of the applicant, are disputed question of facts, which cannot be determined at this stage, when the evidence is yet to come, as such, impugned summoning order does not suffer from any illegality and the present application is liable to be dismissed.

9. Having considered the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration that learned Magistrate, on the basis of the allegations made in the complaint and the statements recorded under Sections 200 and 202 CrPC, has rightly summoned the applicant to face trial.

10. Moreover, the question whether cheque has been issued by the applicant from his account or not is a disputed question of fact, which cannot be determined at this stage, when the evidence is yet to come. All these submission may very well be raised before the court below during trial. The impugned summoning order does not suffer from any illegality or infirmity and does not call for any interference by this Court at this stage.

11. Present application under Section 482 CrPC is devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed.