S.D. Pandit, J.—Rule.

Satishkumar Jayantilal Shah original accused in Criminal Case No. 2361 of 1992 or the fire of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Court No. 9, Ahmedabad has filed the present petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

2. The petitioner has been prosecuted by the respondent No. 2 for the alleged offences punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act by alleging that the present petitioner had taken goods worth Rs. 1,43,248.40 from the respondent No. 2 Company Unipole Plastics Pvt. Ltd. in the period runing between 10.1.1992 and 8.2.1992 and that towards the said dues 4 cheques bearing Nos. 384226, 384246, 384243 and 384249 dated 15.2.1992, 15.3.1992, 16.3.1992 and 25.3.1992 for the respective amount of Rs. 46,926.20, Rs. 1,234.90, Rs. 46,920.20 and Rs. 48,168.10 were given and that the said cheques were presented to the respondent No.2's banker and they were dishonoured by endorsement "refer to drawer" and the petitioner failed to pay the amount of those cheques though he was served with registered notice informing him about the dishonouring of his cheques.

3. The petitioner is seeking the quashing of the said criminal proceeding on 3 grounds :

(i) That the cheques were presented second time after they were dishonoured on the first occation and the prosecution is lodged after the second dishonour by taking recourse to provisions of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and the complainant had fail to take action against the petitioner when the cheques were dishonoured on the first occasion, and he is not entitled to lodge the prosecution on the dishonour of the cheques on second presentation.

(ii) That in all there are 4 cheques, therefore, in view of the provisions of Section 219 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Court can take cognizance and frame a charge only as regards 3 cheques and consequently prosecution for all the 4 cheques is not legal.

(iii) That the complaint in question is not lodged by the complainant as per the provisions of Section 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

4. The contentions raised by the petitioner are contested by the respondent and in addition it is contended on behalf of the respondent No. 2 that this Court should reject this petition on account of delay and latches and on account of the petitioner not coming before the Court with clean hands.

5. Before dealing with the 3 questions raised by the learned Advocate for the petitioner, I would deal with the contentions raised on behalf of the respondent No. 2-original complainant. It is true that the Criminal Case No. 2361 of 1992 was filed by the respondent No. 2 in the year 1992. The present petition is filed in the year 1996, and, therefore, it is contended by Mr. Sanjanwala, the learned Advocate for the respondent No.2 that the petitioner has delayed in coming before this Court and consequently his petition should be rejected. As against this, it is contended by the learned Advocate for the petitioner that though the complaint is filed in the year 1992, the petitioner is in fact served in the year 1995 and he has further submitted that even he was not served with the clear copy of the complaint, i.e., a readable copy of the complaint and he had repeatedly ask for it and he got it in 1996 only. The learned Advocate for the respondent No. 2 disputed the said claim. In my opinion, it is not at all necessary to go into the controversy as to when the present petitioner was served. It is settled law that if a contention raised before the Court exercising powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India or under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure are based on pure question of law and if the same is going to the root of the matter and if the original criminal proceeding amounts to a clear abuse of process of law, then

the Court would not refrain from considering the contentions raised before the Court for quashing the said proceedig. The learned Advocate f