M/S LIGHTHOUSE CONSTRUCTIONS PVT LTD AND ANOTHERversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

              HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

                 APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 15702 of 2026

M/S Lighthouse Constructions Pvt Ltd And Another
                                                                        .....Applicant(s)
                                        Versus
State of U.P. and Another
                                                                   .....Opposite Party(s)

Counsel for Applicant(s)                  :   Kirti Kumar Nirkhi, Shobhit Saxena
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)             :   G.A.

Court No. - 74
                          HON'BLE DEEPAK VERMA, J.

1. Heard counsel for the applicants and learned AGA for the State.


2. The present 528 B.N.S.S. application has been filed to quash the impugned
summoning order dated 28.07.2023, N.B.W. dated 05.12.2025 passed by Additional
Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.3, Fatehpur in Complaint Case No.4491 of 2021
(Wakeel Ahmad vs. Light House Construction Pvt.Ltd. & another), under Section 138
N.I.Act, pending in the court of Additional Chief Judaical Magistrate, Court No.3,
Fatehpur.

3. Present complaint is challenged on ground that opposite party no.2 had stolen the
cheque of the applicant no.2. In this regard, he lodged an FIR on 09.06.2021 against
unknown person. During investigation notices were issued against opposite party no.2
and opposite party no.2 appeared before Investigating Officer. Applicants have issued
Cheque of Rs.1,73,00,000/- in favour of opposite party no.2. Opposite party no.2 has
filed complaint against the applicants on 26.06.2021 asserting therein that the
applicants have issued cheque in favour of opposite party no.2 on 25.02.2021 for
amount of Rs.1,73,00,000/- and same was presented before Bank on 09.03.2021. FIR
has lodged after dishonouring of the cheque. Summoning by magistrate is without
application of judicial mind. Allegation alleged in the complaint is not supported by
substantive evidence.


4. Per contra, learned A.G.A. opposed the submission raised by learned counsel for
the applicant.


5. Considered the argument raised by learned counsel for the applicants and perused
the record. Statutory notice was given to the applicants. Thereafter, present complaint
has lodged. Submission raised by learned counsel for the applicants are disputed
question of fact which will be examined at the time of trial. It is admitted case, prima-
facie discloses that there is business deal between the parties, on that account,
                                                                NA528 No. 15702 of 2026
                                     2

applicant issued cheque of Rs.1,73,00,000/- in favour of opposite party no.2.
Summoning by learned magistrate on 28.07.2023 is just and proper after appreciation
of the documents annexed with the complaint. Contents of complaint prima-facie
discloses offence under section 138 N.I.Act.

6. The Hon. Apex Court in Sri Om Sales Vs. Abhay Kumar @ Abhay Patel and
Another reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2897 has considered following
judgments:

"14. In Maruti Udyog Ltd. v. Narender and others, this Court held that a
presumption must be drawn that the holder of the cheque received the cheque of the
nature referred to in Section 138, for the discharge of any debt or other liability unless
the contrary is proved and, therefore, the High Court was not justified in entertaining
and accepting the plea of the accused at the initial stage of the proceedings and quash
the complaint.


15. Likewise, in Rangappa v. Sri Mohan, it was held that the presumption mandated
by Section 139 of the N.I. Act includes the existence of a legally enforceable debt or
liability. It was observed that such a presumption is rebuttable, and the accused must
raise its defense in the trial.


16. In Rajeshbhai Muljibhai Patel v. State of Gujarat, it was held that the High
Court should not quash the criminal complaint under Section 138 of N.I. Act by going
into disputed questions of fact regarding the cheque in question being issued for the
discharge of debt or liability. Moreso, when Section 139 of the N.I. Act raises a
statutory presumption as regards the cheque being issued for discharge of debt or
liability.


17. In Rathish Babu Unnikrishnan v. State (NCT of Delhi), this Court held that
when there is a legal presumption under Section 139 of N.I. Act, it would not be
judicious to carry out a detailed enquiry on a disputed question of fact at a pre-trial
stage to quash the complaint. The relevant observations in the judgment are extracted
below:


"17. The proposition of law as set out above makes it abundantly clear that the court
should be slow to grant the relief of quashing a complaint at a pre-trial stage, when the
factual controversy is in the realm of possibility particularly because of the legal
presumption, as in this matter. What is also of note is that the factual defense without
having to adduce any evidence need to be of an unimpeachable quality, so as to
altogether disprove the allegations made in the complaint.


18. The consequences of scuttling the criminal process at a pretrial stage can be grave
and irreparable. Quashing proceedings at preliminary stages will result in finality
                                                                  NA528 No. 15702 of 2026
                                      3

without the parties having had an opportunity to adduce evidence and the consequence
then is that the proper forum i.e., the trial court is ousted from weighing the material
evidence. If this is allowed, the accused may be given an unmerited advantage in the
criminal process. Also, because of the legal presumption, when the cheque and the
signature are not disputed by the appellant, the balance of convenience at this stage is
in favor of the complainant / prosecution, as the accused will have the opportunity to
adduce defense evidence during the trial, to rebut the presumption.


19. Situated thus, to non-suit the complainant, at the stage of the summoning order,
when the factual controversy is yet to be canvassed and considered by the trial court
will not in our opinion be judicious. Based upon a prima facie impression, an element
of criminality cannot entirely be ruled out here subject to the determination by the trial
court. Therefore, when the proceedings are at a nascent stage, scuttling of the criminal
process is not merited.""

7. The Hon. Apex Court while deciding aforementioned case, in paragraphs 13 and 18
has observed that:


"13. However, the High Court, in its jurisdiction under Section 482, proceeded to test
whether the cheque was issued for the discharge, in whole or in part, of any debt or
other liability. In our view, such an exercise was unwarranted because, under Section
139 of the N.I. Act, there is a presumption that the holder of a cheque received the
cheque of the nature referred to in Section 138 for the discharge, in whole or in part,
of any debt or other liability. This presumption can be rebutted by evidence led in
trial. A fortiori, the said issue can appropriately be decided either at the trial, or later,
upon conclusion of trial, by the appellate/ revisional court."


"18. Having regard to the aforesaid decisions of this Court as also the provisions of
Section 139 of the N.I. Act, we are of the considered view that the High Court
committed an error by conducting a roving enquiry, at the pre-trial stage, as regards
the cheque being issued for the discharge of debt or liability. Such an exercise, in our
view, was not merited in exercise of power under Section 482 of the Code more so
when the complaint allegations disclosed that the cheque was issued for discharge of
liability. As fulfillment of the necessary ingredients of Section 138 N.I. Act are prima
facie made out from the complaint allegations, in our view, neither the summoning
order nor the complaint could have been quashed by the High Court at the pre-trial
stage."


8. In view of the Apex Court's Judgment, no interference is warranted by this Court.
The present application is, accordingly, dismissed.

9. However, if applicants shall surrender before the concerned Court below within
three weeks from today and in case apply for bail, the bail application shall be decided
                                                                                                NA528 No. 15702 of 2026
                                                                      4

                                    expeditiously by the courts below in accordance with law laid down by the Apex
                                    Court in the case of Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation
                                    and another, reported in 2021 SCC OnLine SC 922.

                                    10. For the period of three weeks from today or till the time of surrender of the
                                    applicants before the Court below, whichever is earlier, no coercive action shall be
                                    taken against them.

                                    April 20, 2026
                                    SKD
                                                                                                    (Deepak Verma,J.)




Digitally signed by :-
SURJIT KUMAR DEY
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad