JUDGMENT

Sanjay Kumar Singh, J.

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State of U.P./opposite party no.1 and perused the record.

2. This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicant to quash the summoning order dated 04.07.2022 and proceedings of case no. 16/IX/2022 (Virendra Kumar v. Shubham Shukla), under section 138 of The Negotiable Instruments Act, Police Station Kotwali Nagar, District Banda, pending in the court of Special Judicial Magistrate-I, Banda.

3. In short compass, the prosecution case is that the opposite party no. 2 has filed a complaint under Section 138 N.I. Act dated 03.11.2021/30.11.2021 against the applicant alleging inter-alia that in January 2019, applicant borrowed a sum of Rs. 10 lac from the opposite party no. 2 on the promise that the same shall be returned in October, 2020. The applicant, in order to discharge his liability, gave a cheque no. "009519" dated 29.10.2020 of Rs. 10 lac to the opposite party no. 2 but on presenting the said cheque in the bank on 27.01.2021, it was dishonoured on 12.04.2021. Thereafter, the information about the dishonour of the cheque was immediately given by the opposite party no. 2 to the applicant but due to Covid-19 lock-down, applicant took a time upto 30.09.2021 for the payment. Later on, he did not pay the said amount to the opposite party no. 2. Thereafter on the believe that the applicant is not inclined to make payment, the opposite party no. 2 sent a notice through his counsel to the applicant by registered post dated 07.10.2021 but the applicant neither paid the cheque amount nor give any reply. Thereafter the opposite party no. 2 filed a complaint along with an application under Section 5 of LIMITATION ACT on 30.11.2021. On the said complaint, the concerned court below summoned the applicant vide order dated 04.07.2022 after following/completing the proceeding under Section 200 and 202 Cr.P.C.

4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant and opposite party no. 2 were having good business relationship, therefore, the cheque in question was given to the opposite party no. 2 in business transaction for guarantee but after completion of business transaction, the opposite party no. 2 did not return his cheque and misuse the cheque by producing the same in the bank. It is also submitted that the cheque was given by the applicant to the opposite party no. 2 on 28.10.2020 but the same was presented by the opposite party no. 2 on 29.01.2021, therefore, there is a violation of section 138(a) of N.I. Act. It is further submitted that the cheque, which was presented by the opposite party no. 2 in the bank, was returned by the bank on 30.01.2021 but required notice was given by the opposite party no. 2 after eight months and the complaint was filed on 30.11.2021 which is violative of section 138 (b)(c) of N.I. Act, therefore, the impugned summoning order dated 04.07.2022 is liable to be quashed.

5. On the other hand, learned A.G.A. refuting the submission of learned counsel for the applicant submits that the issuance of the cheque by the applicant in favour of complainant is not disputed. The fact that the cheque has been dishonoured is also not disputed, hence, there is no illegality in summoning the accused-applicant to face trial in the light of presumption under section 139 of the N.I. Act.

6. After having heard the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, I find that as per contents of the complaint, cheque dated 28.10.2020 was presented by the opposite party no. 2 on 27.01.2021 in the bank within three months', hence there is no violation of