1. - Petitioner requests quashing of cognizance and registration of case against him vide Magistreal order dated 19.01.05 which affirmed by revisional court order dated 21.09.2007.

2. Brief facts necessary for disposal of petition are that (i) a criminal complaint presented on 30.10.2003 before Magistreal court by respondent no.2 (complainant) forwarded to P.S., and registered FIR resulted in negative FR, then on protest application, recording statements of witnesses, learned Magistrate taking cognizance for the offence of Section 420 and 406 Indian Penal Code directed warrant of arrest which order is under challenge in this petition.

3. On a criminal complaint initiated by firm D, proprietor of which is alleged to be petitioner, a criminal case against respondent no.2 for the offence of Section 138 N.I. Act is and was already pending on the allegations : (i) Respondent no.2 taking loan of Rs. 3,30,000 for repayment issued cheque No. 244193 of Rs. 3,30,000/- bearing date 20.02.2004 (ii) cheque was dishonoured so after giving notice, the firm through petitioner presented a criminal complaint on 20.03.02 (iii) cognizance taken and case registered for offence under Section 138 N.I. Act against respondent no.2 on 17.04.02.

4. Respondent no.2 on 30.10.03 presented a criminal complaint against two firms ; Shiv Kumar Mangi lal (S) and Durga Trading company (D) alleging (i) both firms are agricultural produce commission agents (ii) R2 since 5-6 years is dealing with firms and used to sell agricultural produce through these firms (iii) petitioner is illiterate (iv) Firm S in the year 2001 telling respondent no.2 of necessity of bank account for sale of agricultural produce to Govt agencies, through sister's son of P (showing him guarantor) got opened a bank account of R and petitioner depositing Rs. 500/- with Oriental Bank of Commerce obtained signatures of petitioner on blank cheque (v) such cheques retained by petitioner (vi) R in January 2002 asked P for payment of amount due to him then petitioner denied of any amount payable from firm S. Also alleged in the complaint of respondent no.2 is that P also obtained amount of payments of agricultural produce deposited by firm D. Respondent further claimed that he never had any dealing with firm D which is owned by petitioner himself and business of both the firms are carried from one and same place and petitioner without consent and exercising fraud got opened bank account and using petitioner's signed blanked cheque himself (petitioner) withdrew the amount of Rs. 3.3 lacs. Further alleged that on the basis of cheque No. 244193 initiated complaint of Section 138 N.I. Act which complaint forwarded to P.S and FIR no. 484/03 registered and negative FR submitted. Learned Magistrate on protest application recording statements vide order dated 19.01.05 has taken cognizance which is under challenge.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that only as a counter to case of N.I. Act and exclusively as a bargain, proceedings by respondent no.2 are initiated. Argued that on the facts apparent, issuance of process and registering case is abuse of process of court and deserves to be quashed.

6. In support of contention, reliance placed on decisions (i) 2008(1) WLC (SC) Cri. 34 : 2007 AIR SCW 6679 Inder Mohan Goswami & Anr. v. State of Uttaranchal & ors (ii) S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 118/2006 Hanumana Ram & ors. v. State & Ors (iii) S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 177/2000 S.K. Gulati & ors. v. State & anr.

7. Learned counsel for the respondent argued that petitioner is the owner of both the firms and respondent no.2 complainant is an agriculturist himself got opened an account and cheque book with signatures of R on blank cheques retained by petitioner - such is the statement not only of petitioner but also of two witnesses examined under Section 202 and at the stage of taking cognizance rival factual contentions are not to be examined. Also argued that cognizance order is also