JUDGMENT

Samit Gopal, J.

List revised.

2. Heard Sri Dharmendra Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri B.B. Upadhyay, learned counsel for the State.

3. The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicant- Ravi Dubey with the following prayer:-

"It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to stay impugned summoning order dated 17.01.2023 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Auraiya in complaint case no. 1323/2022 Jitendra Singh Sengar v. Ravi Dubey, under Section 138 Negotiable Instrument Act, Police Station Auraiya, District Auraiya.

It is further prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to quash the further proceedings of the complaint case no. 1323/2022 Jitendra Singh Sengar v. Ravi Dubey, under Section 138 Negotiable Instrument Act, Police Station Auraiya, District Auraiya during the pendency of the present application; otherwise the applicant shall suffer an irreparable loss.

And/or pass such other or further order as this Hon'ble court may deem fit and proper in the facts of the case."

4. The facts of the case are that a complaint under section 138/142 of the N.I. Act dated 24.02.2022 was filed by the opposite party no.2 against the applicant alleging therein that cheque no.251497 dated 29.12.2021 of Rs. 3,50,000/- of State Bank of India, Branch Kuthondh was given by the applicant to the opposite party no.2. The said cheque was deposited in the bank account of the complaint on 03.01.2022 which stood dishonored with the comment 'account closed'. The complainant then gave a notice dated 25.01.2022 through speed-post and registered post. Despite receipt of the said notice, the accused has not paid the money. A complaint has thus been filed. The trial court summoned the applicant vide its order dated 17.01.2023 under section 138 N.I. Act to face trial.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is submitted that there is no legal enforceable debt upon the applicant. The criminal proceedings are with malafide intentions and abuse of process of court. It is further submitted that the story as narrated by the opposite party no.2 in the complaint is a totally false, frivolous and a concocted story. The proceedings as initiated against the applicant are abuse of process of court. It is further submitted that the proceedings as such be quashed.

6. Learned counsel for the State has been heard.

7. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the records, it is evident that the cheque issued by the applicant in favour of the complainant stood dishonored. Despite service of notice the said payment has not been done to the complainant. Prima facie case is made out against the applicant. The order summoning the applicant does not suffer from any irregularity or illegality. The prayer for quashing of the proceedings is thus refused.

8. In the last, the learned counsel has urged before the Court that the facts and circumstances of the case and the nature of offence involved are such in which the litigating parties should be given a chance to settle this matter amicably and for this purpose some protective direction may be given by this Court so that adequate steps may be taken in furtherance of the same object. Learned counsel has placed reliance on judgement of the Apex Court in the case of Damodar S. Prabhu v. Sayed Babalal H. : 2010 (5) SCC 663 and M/s. Meters & Instrument Private Ltd. & Another v. Kanchan Mehta: (2018) 1 SCC 560. It is argued that the Apex Court has taken cognizance of