( 1 )

( 2 ) THE accused in Criminal Case No. 568 of 1996 on the file of Judicial magistrate, First Class, Ahmedabad Rural have filed the present petition under Sec. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing and setting aside the proceeding of the said Criminal case.

( 3 ) THE petitioners are the Private Limited Company manufacturing agro-climatic and pesticides. The respondent No. 1 was a customer of the petitioners-Company and admittedly there was transactions of respondent No. 1 purchasing the petitioners- companys products on credit. It is the claim of the petitioners that on 5-10-1995 the respondent No. 1 was owing an amount of Rs. 6,71,115. 26 and towards the said dues, they gave a cheque bearing No. 168896 on 30-1-1996. The said cheque was presented by the petitioners for encashment to their Bank and the cheque was under sec. 482 Criminal Procedure Code for quashing prosecution. dishonoured with endorsement of insufficient funds. Thereafter, the petitioners had issued statutory notice under Sec. 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act and then getting a reply from the respondent No. 1 and non-payment of the full of the amount of the cheque within 15 days of the receipt of the said notice, they lodged a complaint in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Ahmedabad Rural, under Sec. 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. It is the case of the petitioners that after the respondent no. 1 served with the said notice, the respondent No. 1 has filed this private Criminal case No. 568 of 1996 in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Ahmedabad rural alleging that the respondent No. 1 had given this cheque and 4 other cheques by merely signing them and there was no writing of the name of the person to whom the cheque was issued. Similarly, the figures of amount also were not in the said cheque and the petitioners used one of the said cheque, namely, bearing No. 168896 and wrote his own name as holder of the cheque and also inserted the figures of rs. 6,71,115. 26 ps. and by doing the said act, the petitioners have committed the offence punishable under Secs. of 175, 406, 409, 420, 427, 465, 467, 120-B and 114 of I. P. C. and on the strength of the same, a process has been issued against the present petitioners. It is their claim that it is clear abuse of process of law, and, therefore, the said criminal proceeding should be quashed.

( 4 ) THE notice was issued to the respondent No. 1 and the respondent No. 1 has contested the claim of the petitioners. The petitioners as well as the respondents are heard at length, and, therefore, I proceed to decide this petition finally.

( 5 ) IT is true that at this stage, I am considering the question as to whether the criminal proceeding in question is to be quashed by exercising the discretionary power under Sec. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. At this stage, it is not my duty to find out as to whether the accused will be ultimately convicted or acquitted. If from the material and record it is found that the criminal proceeding in question is a clear abuse of process of law, then alone I can quash the same. In the case of Punjab National Bank v. Surendra Prasad Sinha, AIR 1992 1815 it is observed by the Supreme Court as under : "judicial process should not be an instrument of oppression or needless harassment. The Court should be circumspect and judicious in exercising discretion and should take all the relevant facts and circumstances into consideration before issuing process lest it would be an instrument in the hands of private complainant as vendetta to harass the persons needlessly. In that case the complainant had some fix deposited with the Punjab National bank. Similarly, the complainant had also taken some loans from Punjab National bank. The claim of the Punjab National Bank to recover the said amount of loans by filing a suit in the civil Court had become time-barred. Thereafter, the Punjab national Bank had deducted the amount which was due t