JUDGMENT

Samit Gopal, J.

List revised.

2. Heard Sri Devesh Kumar, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri S.B. Maurya, learned counsel for the State and perused the record.

3. This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicant Vinay Kumar Singh, with the prayer to quash the entire proceedings of Complaint Case No. 224758 of 2022, Chandrashekhar Singh v. Vinay Kumar Singh , under Section 138 N.I. Act, P.S.- Chetganj, District Varanasi as well as summoning order dated 20.12.2022 passed by Presiding Officer, Additional Civil Judge (J.D.), Court No. 2, Varanasi and with the further prayer to stay the proceedings of said complaint case.

4. The facts of the case are that a complaint dated 7.10.2022 was filed by the opposite party no. 2 against the applicant with the allegation that cheque bearing no. 000099 of Rs.22 lakh dated 22.5.2022 on H.D.F.C. Bank, Branch C-7/39 B, Lahuraveer, Maidagin Road, Varanasi- 221001 (U.P.) was given by the accused to the complaint which was presented in Union Bank of India, Kerakatpur, Jaunpur in the account of the complainant on 24.5.2022 which stood dishonoured on 31.5.2022 with the remark "funds insufficient". The same was returned to the complainant on 5.7.2022. The cheque was again presented on 5.7.2022 which was again dishonoured on 8.7.2022 due to funds being insufficient and was received back by the complainant on 1.8.2022. Notices dated 22.8.2022 were sent on the present address and permanent address of accused which were received by him on 23.8.2022 and 24.8.2022. Despite receiving the said notices the money was not paid to the complainant. He thus filed the complaint on which the applicant has been summoned vide order dated 20.12.2022 passed by the trial court.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is submitted that the allegation that the applicant had taken Rs.22 lakh as debt from the complainant is totally false as no such debt was ever taken by him. It is further submitted that the applicant had taken Rs.6 lakh from the opposite party no. 2 whereas Rs.5 lakh was given by the opposite party no. 2 through his friend Sajid. It is next submitted that the applicant had returned more than Rs.5 lakh to the opposite party no. 2 through banking transactions on different dates towards payment of the aforesaid debt, before presentation of cheque in question a total sum of Rs. 3,30,500/- has been paid by the applicant to the opposite party no. 2 through various bank transactions. It is submitted that the applicant had paid the remaining Rs.1,89,000/- through banking transactions to some other people as was directed by the opposite party no. 2. It is submitted that since the opposite party no. 2 has not made endorsement on the said cheque with regards to part payments of money, the same is against section 56 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and as such is violative of said section and thus the impugned proceedings deserve to be quashed. Learned counsel has relied upon the judgement of Apex Court in the case of Dashrathbhai Trikambhai Patel v. Hitesh Mahendrabhai Patel and another: 2022 Live Law (SC) 830 to buttress the said arguments.

6. Per contra, learned State counsel opposed the prayer for quashing.

7. After having heard learned counsels for the parties and perusing the records, it is evident that the dispute relates to cheque of Rs.22 lakh issued by the applicant in favour of the opposite party no. 2 which stood dishonoured twice after which notices were sent at his permanent address and at the present address which have been received by him. In so far as the argument with regards to refund of amount through banking transactions is co