JUDGMENT

Suresh Kumar Gupta, J.

At the very outset, learned A.G.A. has raised an objection that the applicant has made the Court as party, who has passed the summoning order.

2. Learned counsel for applicant is directed to delete the name of the court from the array of party during the course of the day.

3. Heard learned counsel for applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material available on record.

4. By means of this application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. the applicant has sought following prayer:-

"Wherefore, it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to set aside summoning order dated 02.02.2023 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-I, Lucknow in Complaint Case No. 13663 of 2022, under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, Police Station Gomti Nagar, District Lucknow as well as entire proceedings of the aforesaid case may also be quashed."

5. Learned counsel for applicant has submitted that the applicant is innocent and has wrongly been implicated in this case. Further submission is that the applicant in the year 2018- 19 the applicant, her husband and her brother-in-law entered in some financial transactions with opposite party no. 3. In the meantime, the applicant lost her cheque in the office of opposite party no. 3. It is further submitted that the the applicant never handed over the impugned cheque to opposite party no. 3. The applicant sent a legal notice on 24.11.2021 to opposite party no. 3 not to present the disputed cheque for encashment. The applicant clearly intimated opposite party no. 3 that she had neither signed the disputed cheque nor issued the same in favour of opposite party no. 3. Therefore, she requested the opposite party no. 3 not to present the disputed cheques before the bank for encashment. It is further submitted that despite the prior notice given to opposite party no. 3 not to present the disputed cheques, the opposite party no. 3 presented the said cheques for encashment before the bank. Consequently the disputed cheques were dishonoured.

6. In support of his submission, learned counsel for applicant has relied upon judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Electronics Trade and Technology Development Corporation Ltd. v. Indian Technologists and Engineers (Electronics) Private Ltd. reported in 1996 (1) SCR 843 and Madras High Court in the case of Mubarak Nisha v. R.M. Subramanian reported in (1997) 88 Comp. Cas 172. By relying the aforesaid authority, learned counsel for applicant has submitted that since dispute cheque has not been issued by the applicant and legal notice for not to present the said cheque has been given to opposite party no. 3, no offence is made out against the applicant.

7. Learned A.G.A. for the State has submitted that disputed cheque has not been annexed by the applicant and disputed question of fact cannot be decided at this stage and the applicant has liberty to raise this issue before the court concerned.

8. So far as quashing of entire proceedings is concerned, from the perusal of the material on record and looking into the facts of the case at this stage, it cannot be said that no offence is made out against the applicant. All the submission made relates to the disputed question of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court.

9. Moreover, the applicant has got a right of discharge according to the provisions prescribed in Cr.P.C., as the case may be, through a proper application for the said purpose and they are free to take all the submissions in the said discharge application before the trial court.

10. The prayer for quashing the proceedings is refused.

11. So