The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement that a cheque must be presented within six months from the date of its issuance to attract Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, and the court's emphasis on preventing the abuse of the process of the court.

Rakesh Kumar, J.

1. The sole Petitioner, while invoking inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, has prayed for quashing of an order dated, 19th December, 2005 passed in Complaint Case No. 2816(c) of 2005, whereby the learned Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate, Patna has taken cognizance of offence under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The, Petitioner has further prayed for quashing of entire criminal proceeding in Complaint Case No. 2816(c) of 2005, which is pending In the Court of Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Patna.

2. Short fact of the case is that Opposite Party No. 2 filed a complaint in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patna vide Complaint Case No. 2816(c) of 2005 against the Petitioner on an accusation of commission of offence under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. It was disclosed in the complaint petition that the Petitioner approached him for a friendly loan of Rs, 50,000 with regard to his Computer business with an assurance that he will return the same at the earliest. On the request of the Petitioner, the Complainant gave Rs. 50,000 as friendly loan and as such he gave Cheque on 7th September, 2004 for an amount of Rs. 20,000 drawn on ICICI Bank, Dhanbad Branch and he gave Rs. 30,000 in cash to the Petitioner. It was further disclosed that the Petitioner subsequently on 4th February, 2005 issued a Cheque of Rs. 50,000 Bearing No. 755567 drawn on Bank of Baroda, Patna Branch. However, at the time of handing over the cheque, it was requested by the Petitioner to present the same after fortnight. It further appears from the complaint petition that in the meanwhile the Petitioner was kidnapped and he was released after a week and as such the Compiainant kept the production of the cheque in abeyance. Subsequently, periodically the Petitioner requested the Complainant not to produce the cheque. After confirmation given by the Petitioner that there were sufficient amount in his account, the cheque was presented in Bank. However, on 16th July, 2005, the cheque was returned to the Complainant un-paid due to the reason of in-sufficient funds in account of the Petitioner. The Complainant again contacted the Petitioner, who promised to deposit sufficient amount in his account by 25th July, 2005. Accordingly, the Complainant again produced the cheque on 26th July, 2005 for its encashment, but the same again bounced back. The Complainant received such intimation on 6th August, 2005. The Complainant further disclosed that on 25th August, 2005, the Petitioner got a legal notice issued to the Petitioner and despite that the Petitioner did not clear the due amount. After filing the complaint, the Complainant was examined on S.A, and also produced witness in support of his complaint. The learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Patna, by its order dated, 19th December, 2005, took cognizance of offence under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and directed for summoning the Petitioner.

3. Aggrieved with the order of cognizance, the Petitioner approached this Court by filing the present petition. On 29th November, 2007, the petition was admitted for hearing, notice was directed to be issued to Opposite Party No. 2 and in the meanwhile, it was directed that further proceedings in respect of Complaint Case No. 2816(c) of 2005 pending in the Court of Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Patna shall remain stayed. The order of stay is still continuing. Despite valid service of notice on opposite party, he preferred not to appear before this Court and as such in his absence, the matter was heard.

4. Shri Kamla Kant Tiwary, learned Counsel for the Petitioner, while questioning the order of cognizance and initiation of proceeding on the basis of complaint filed by the Opposite Party No. 2, has raised several gr