MOOL CHAND GARG, J.

1. By this petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, Petitioner seeks quashing of summoning order dated 29.01.2005 and criminal complaint bearing no. 95/1/2004 pending in the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate Patiala House New Delhi, filed by the respondent u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act 1881 hereinafter referred to as (NI Act), against the petitioner on account of dishonoring of the cheque issued by the petitioner, for which payment was not made despite service of the notice within the stipulated time. The complaint was filed within the time prescribed. The petitioner caused appearance in response to the issuance of summons on 02.05.2005. This petition has been filed on 24.01.2009.

2. It is the case of the petitioner that the impugned order lacks application of mind as the summoning order dated 29.01.2005 is a stereotyped-one and has been issued in a cyclostyled format. It is also his case that the complaint has been filed in respect of a debt which is not legally enforceable and that the complaint is even otherwise not maintainable as the respondents were not competent are registered under Section 4 of the Punjab Registration of Moneylenders Act and thus were not entitled to initiate the proceedings in the nature of recovery of the amount so lent by them as alleged. He has relied upon the following judgments in support of his aforesaid submissions; . i) Ravinder Goel & Anr Vs. State & Anr 2007 (1) JCC 465 ii) D.A.Mehta & Ors. Vs. The Regional Director E.S.I. Corporation reported in 1991 (3) CRIMES 72, (iii) Pepsi Foods Ltd. Vs. Special Judicial Magistrate, reported in 1998 SCC (Crl.) 1400, iv) G.Pankajakshmi Amma & Ors Vs. mathai Mathew (Dead) through LRS and Anr reported in (2004) 12 Supreme court Cases 83; And (v) Krishnam Raju Finances Vs. Abida Sultana & Ors 2004 (2) JCC (NI) 130.

3. Arguments were heard on the question of admissibility of such a petition the petitioner in addition to oral submission, also filed a written note.

4. In the case of Pepsi Food Limited and Anr. Vs. Special Judicial Magistrate and Ors. (1998) 5 SCC 749 which has been relied upon by the petitioner the scope of the powers vested in this Court under Section 482 and Article 227 have been considered in the light of the judgment delivered by the Apex Court in Bhajan lal?s Case and it has been held:

21. The questions which arise for consideration are if in the circumstances of the case, the appellants rightly approached the High Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution and if so, was the High Court justified in refusing to grant any relief to the appellants because of the view which it took of the law and the facts of the case. We have, thus, to examine the power of the High Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution and Section 482 of the Code.

22. It is settled that the High Court can exercise its power of judicial review in criminal matters. In State of Haryana V. Bhajan Lal this Court examined the extraordinary power under Article 226 of the Constitution and also the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code which it said could be exercised by the High Court either to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. While laying down certain guidelines where the Court will exercise jurisdiction under these provisions, it was also stated that these guidelines could not be inflexible or laying rigid formulae to be followed by the courts. Exercise of such power would depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case but with the sole purpose to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. One of such guidelines is where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused. Under Article 227 the power of superintendence

Click Here to Read the rest of this document