P.S. Narayana, J.—Heard Mr. Ramakrishna, the learned counsel representing the petitioners/accused, Mr. Akshat Sanghi, Counsel representing 1st respondent and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor representing 2nd respondent.

2. Mr. Ramakrishna, the learned Counsel representing the petitioner would maintain that when the cheque number was wrongly mentioned inasmuch as there was no valid notice under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, the very complaint is not maintainable and hence the proceedings are liable to be quashed.

3. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor however would maintain that the two grounds which had been raised—the wrong number relating to the cheque in the notice and also to the effect that the blank cheque was issued by way of security, these being factual controversies, normally on such grounds, the Criminal Petition under Section 482, Criminal Procedure Code (in short hereinafter referred to as “Code” for the purpose of convenience) cannot be allowed.

4. Mr. Akshat Sanghi representing Sri. Sharad Sanghi had placed strong reliance on Kavuri Suwarna Bala Sundaram v. Karnati Poorna Chandra Rao1 and would maintain that in the light of the said dec