1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Anupam Verma, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and Sri Raj Bahadur Verma, learned A.G.A for the State and perused the record.

2. The instant application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the entire proceeding as well as summoning order dated 24.05.2022 and order dated 25.09.2023 passed by Judicial Magistrate, Court No.2, Jhansi in Case No.2965 of 2022, under Section 138 N.I. Act, pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate, Court No.2, Jhansi.

3. Contention of learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant and opposite party no.2 having business relationship and during that relationship opposite party no.2 misused the cheque singed by the applicant. It is further submitted by counsel for the applicant that cheque in question was not issued in discharge of any liability and the document annexed with the second supplementary affidavit clearly shows that there is a business transaction between the applicant and opposite party no.2. It is applicant who has transferred huge amount in the account of opposite party no.2. It is lastly submitted that he had also filed a discharge application before the court below but it has been erroneously rejected on 25.09.2023 on the ground that discharge application is not maintainable in the light of judgement of Apex Court in the case of Adalat Prasad vs Rooplal Jindal and others; 2004(7) SCC 338.

4. Per contra, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 as well as learned AGA have submitted that once it is undisputed cheque in question issued by the applicant, there is presumption arises under N.I.Act and the same was issued in discharge of liability.

5. Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and perusal of record, this Court of the view that above ground raised by counsel for the applicant are disputed question of fact, and same can be decided during trial. So far as rejection of discharge application on the ground of maintainable is concerned, this Court already held in the case of Jai Prakash Goyal vs State of U.P. and another (Application u/s 482 No. 1054 of 2024), the discharge application in the proceeding under N.I. Act is not maintainable.

6. In view of above, this Court does not find any good ground to interfere in the impugned proceeding, therefore, the present application is, accordingly, dismissed.