JUDGMENT : Vikas Budhwar, J. 1. Heard Sri Lovekush Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant as well as Sri B.S. Kushwaha, learned AGA for the State. 2. This application u/s 482 of Cr.P.C . has been filed for quashing the impugned order dated 18.11.2024 passed by Addl. Session Judge/Special Judge (D.A.A.), Court No. 3, Agra in Revision No. 737 of 2024 (Dr. Aslam Khan Malik Vs. State of U.P. and another) as well as order dated 28.08.2024 passed by Judicial Magistrate Court no. 1, Agra and summoning order dated 21.04.2022 as corrected order dated 30.10.2023 passed by learned Judicial magistrate/Addl. Civil Judge (J.D.), Agra in Complaint Case No. 12151 of 2021 (Smt. Anita Kothiya Vs. Dr. Aslam Khan Malik) proceeding under Section 138 of N.I. Act, P.S. Tajganj, District Agra. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that a complaint stood lodged by the opposite party no. 2 on 12.11.2021 against the applicant relatable to issuance of three cheques of Rs. 33,00,000/- which was presented in the bank then the same stood dishonored on 05.10.2021 and 11.10.2021, a registered notice was sent on 18.10.2021 which returned back on 23.10.2021 with the remark that the applicant refused to accept the same and after lapsing of 15 days period on 07.11.2021, the complaint stood lodged on 12.11.2021. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that there happens to be an agreement between the three parties, applicant, opposite party no. 2 and one Dr. Aslam Khan, he submits that a registered agreement to sell stood executed between the said parties on 12.08.2014, according to which, certain amounts stood transferred and the applicant had issued the said cheques as security for getting the agreement to sell cancelled. However, the opposite party misused the cheques which were ment for security and get it encashed and did not get the agreement cancelled. 4 Submission is that such mere dishonor of the cheques would not attract the provisions of Section 138 of the N.I. Act and the applicant is innocent as rather to the contrary, a litigation before the Hon'ble High Court is also pending, Writ No. 57496 of 2011, thus, during the pendency of the said proceedings, criminality cannot be slapped. 5. 4 Submission is that such mere dishonor of the cheques would not attract the provisions of Section 138 of the N.I. Act and the applicant is innocent as rather to the contrary, a litigation before the Hon'ble High Court is also pending, Writ No. 57496 of 2011, thus, during the pendency of the said proceedings, criminality cannot be slapped. 5. Learned AGA, on the other hand, submits that once it is not disputed that the cheques stood issued and the same also stood dishonored and when legal notice was sought to be served, the same was returned as not accepted and after lapse of the statutory period so specified in the N.I. Act, the complaint has been lodged then defences cannot be taken into consideration at this stage. 6. Having heard the arguments so sought to be raised across the bar, the sole question which arises for determination is the extent of judicial intervention in the present proceedings at the present stage. Apparently, once the applicant has not disputed the dates and the events and the factum of issuance of cheuqes, dishonoring as well as the notice so sought to be served, in particular, the fact that it was returned as not accepted and the date of the lodging of the complaint within the limitation, then this Court is not required to go into the factual aspects regarding the issue of tripartite settlement which is stated to have been entered into between the parties. As a matter of fact, the stage has not yet arisen for the purposes to go into defences particularly, when facts have not been disputed but only the theory propounded is that the applicant has not committed the said offences particularly, when there was a breach of condition of the agreement. 7. Accordingly, the application is consigned to record.