The power to quash FIR/complaint should be sparingly exercised and only to prevent abuse of process of law or to secure the ends of justice. Additionally, the requirements of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act regarding the presentation of cheques were emphasized.

1. In this petition filed under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure Svt. 1989, the petitioner inter alia seeks quashing of order of cognizance dated 26.04.2016 as well as issuance of summons by Special Munsiff Mobile Magistrate, Jammu and also for quashment of the complaint filed by respondent under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act before the Court of Munsiff, Jammu.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner borrowed a sum of Rs. 2.00 lacs from respondent in June 2015 and on demand had given two blank cheques bearing No. 499466 and 499467 including the cheque in question on the assurance of respondent that he will just retain these cheques as security purpose and will return them to the petitioner after liquidation of borrowed amount. The respondent also charged interest from the petitioner and the total amount decided to be repaid was fixed at Rs. 3.00 lacs.

3. On asking of the respondent to return the amount early, the petitioner issued three cheques bearing Nos. 905128, 905129 and 905130 on 18.02.2016. These cheques were issued in the name of wife and son of respondent, namely, Surinder Kour and Jatinder Singh, which were duly presented by above named persons on 20.02.2016 and Rs. 3.00 lacs were withdrawn in the name of Surinder Kour and Jatinder Singh. After liquidation of whole of the borrowed money along with interest, the petitioner requested the respondent to return the cheques previously given to him but he did not return the same after repeated requests. It is contended that when the petitioner asked the respondent that if he will not return the cheques previously given, he will forced to knock the doors of Court due to which the respondent got aggressive and on 06.03.2016, he forcibly entered the office premises of petitioner and assaulted the petitioner using abusive language and ransacked the office and while leaving had also threatened the petitioner of causing wrongful damage to the petitioner.

4. The petitioner, thereafter, filed a complaint against the respondent before the Munsiff, R. S. Pura under Sections 452, 506, 323, 336 RPC and also for illegally retaining of the cheques as aforesaid by respondent. The Munsiff, R. S. Pura issued process against the respondent and the matter is still pending. It is further contended that the respondent intentionally avoided his appearance before Munsiff, R.S. Pura and by misusing the cheques including the cheques in question, presented the cheque bearing No. 499466 in the Bank and has filed a false and frivolous complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act against the petitioner. It is contended that the learned Magistrate without going through the legality of the complaint has taken the cognizance against the petitioner on 26.04.2016 and issued summons against the petitioner. In the aforesaid factual background, the petitioner has approached this court seeking quashment of cognizance order dated 26.04.2016 as well as issuance of summons by the Special Munsiff Mobile Magistrate, Jammu.

5. The petitioners being aggrieved of order dated 26.04.2016 as well as issuance of summons has challenged the same in the instant petition on the ground that :

(i) The order impugned is non-speaking, illegal and has been passed against the provisions of law. That cheque was presented after expiry of time of three months from date of issue ,so complaint was not maintainable. The court below has not thoroughly examined the contents of complaint before taking the cognizance against the petitioner. The complaint has been filed on the basis of the last presentation of the cheque in question i.e. on 1.03.2016 and the cheque was presented after the expiry of the validity period.

(ii) That the complaint suffers from a delay of 85/86 days in its filing against the petitioner on the basis of first presentation of the cheque in question, and;

(iii) That the learned Magistrate has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.

6. The respondent has not