At the stage of cognizance, the concerned court is required to consider whether a prima facie case against the accused is made out, and the detailed analysis and appreciation of the evidence are subject to trial.

JUDGMENT

Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J. - These criminal misc. petitions under Section 482 Cr.P.C. have been preferred claiming the following reliefs:-

Petition No. 5382/2019:

"It is, therefore, most humbly prayed that this criminal misc. petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. filed by the accused-petitioner may kindly be allowed and impugned Orders dated 20.07.2019 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Churu, in Criminal Revision No. 113/2016 (102/2016) titled as "Smt. Indu Sharma v. Smt. Minakshi" as well as dated 04.10.2016 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, Churu, in Criminal (Complaint) Case No. 11/2015 titled as "Smt. Minakshi v. Smt. Indu Sharma" may kindly be quashed and set aside and the accused petitioner may kindly be ordered to be discharged of the aforesaid offence."

Petition No. 5396/2019:

"It is, therefore, most humbly prayed that this criminal misc. petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. filed by the accused-petitioner may kindly be allowed and impugned Orders dated 20.07.2019 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Churu, in Criminal Revision No. 112/2016 (101/2016) titled as "Smt. Indu Sharma v. Smt. Minakshi" as well as dated 04.10.2016 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, Churu, in Criminal (Complaint) Case No. 10/2015 titled as "Smt. Minakshi v. Smt. Indu Sharma" may kindly be quashed and set aside and the accused petitioner may kindly be ordered to be discharged of the aforesaid offence."

2. Brief facts of the case, as placed before this Court by the learned counsel for the petitioner, are that on 22.12.2014 the complainant/respondent filed a complaint against the accused-petitioner for offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Churu, alleging therein that the accused-petitioner borrowed a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- from the complainant/respondent, with an assurance that she would repay the same at the earliest.

2.1. In lieu of the discharge of the debt, the accused-petitioner issued two cheques bearing Nos. 538733 and 538737, both dated 21.09.2014 amounting to Rs. 50,000/- each of the Marudhar Kshetriya Gramin Bank, Ratannagar, under her signatures in favour of the complainant/respondent, and handed over the same to her. Thereafter, the complainant/respondent presented the said cheques in her Bank, namely, Baroda Rajasthan Kshetriya Gramin Bank, Branch RIICO, Churu on 07.11.2014, but the same were dishonored on account of "insufficient funds" and the information in regard thereto was received by the respondent through Memo dated 08.11.2014.

2.2. The complainant/respondent served a legal notice dated 20.11.2014 upon the accused-petitioner against dishonour of the cheques, but despite the same, the accused-petitioner failed to make the necessary payments.

2.3. Thereafter, the complainant/respondent filed the complaint, whereupon the learned Judicial Magistrate, Churu, took cognizance, vide the impugned order dated 04.10.2016, against the accused-petitioner under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. Against the said cognizance order, the accused-petitioner filed a revision petition before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Churu, but the same was dismissed, vide the impugned order dated 20.07.2019, while upholding the aforementioned order.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the learned courts below have not appreciated the correction position of law involved in the matter as well as the material/evidence available on record.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the complainant/respondent got the legal notice served demanding a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- in lieu of the cheque amount of Rs. 50,000/- each, which is not only contrary to the provisions of Negotiable Instruments Act, but also the notice was defective and invalid.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner, in support of the submissions so made, placed reliance on the judgments rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the cases of Suman Sethi v.