The defenses raised by the petitioner should be decided during trial, and the court found no grounds to quash the complaint.

Sanjay Kumar Gupta, J.

Through the medium of instant petition filed under Section 561-A Cr.P.C., petitioner seeks quashing of impugned order dated 06.04.2013 passed by learned Munsiff, Hiranagar in file No.07/Comp. titled Uttam Chand v. Rakesh Kumar Gupta and all subsequent proceedings in the said complaint.

2. It is stated in the petition that a false and frivolous complaint under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act has been preferred by the respondent against the petitioner in the Court of learned Munsiff JMIC, Hiranagar; that vide order dated 06.04.2013 the cognizance against the petitioner has been taken by the learned Munsiff JMIC Hiranagar; that in his statement recorded on 12.11.2013, the petitioner denied his liability or debt vis-a-vis the petitioner on the ground that the transactions in regard to land took place with the daughter-in-law of the petitioner who is a headmaster in School Education and all liability has been paid by the petitioner to her. On that count the respondent has no locus standi to present the said complaint against the petitioner. This fact has been admitted by the respondent in his statement recorded before the learned Munsiff on 03.09.2014. The criminal complaint as well as order dated 06.04.2013 and the subsequent proceedings resulting thereof are patent abuse of the process of law and as such impugned on the following grounds:

(i) That while passing order impugned dated 06.04.2013, learned Munsiff, Hiranagar overlooked the provisions of clause (b) of section 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act as the complaint in question is patently time barred as the same has been preferred after more than one month from the date on which cause of action in terms of clause (c) of the proviso to Section 138 arises. The contention of the petitioner is vindicated from the fact that the notice in terms of clause (b) of Section 138 came to be allegedly returned on 12.02.2013 to the respondent as such, the instant complaint should have been preferred on or before 27th day of March, 2013 when the instant case has been preferred on 05.04.2013. This being so the present complaint was time barred by at least 9 days and should have been dismissed on that score alone instead of taking cognizance of the offence under section 138 of N.I. Act against the petitioner. Further a bare reading of the entire complaint vividly reflect that no prayer for condonation of delay in preferring the complaint has been preferred nor any such condonation of delay has been granted by the said Court.

(ii) That the learned Munsiff, Hiranagar, committed a fatal error of law by continuing the present complaint in view of the admission of the complainant that the transactions in regard to some land took place between the petitioner and his major daughter-in-law, who is a Headmaster in a School. The liability, if any, arises against the said daughter in law and not against the petitioner as in his statement recorded on 03.09.2014 the respondent admitted that the cheque in question was filled in by the said daughter in law of the respondent and his name was filled in the said cheque. This being so, the complaint of the respondent should have been dismissed on that score alone.

(iii) That the complaint of the respondent under section 138 of the N.I. Act is not in consonance with section 138 of the N.I. Act as the cheque in question has been presented beyond the statutory period of six months, as such the said complaint is liable to be set aside and quashed as the learned Munsiff has exercised jurisdiction in a most irregular manner which has put the petitioner to undue hardships and grave injustice.

(iv) That the Court of learned Munsiff, Hirnagar, lacks territorial jurisdiction as the alleged cheque dishonoured was drawn by the petitioner on Gandhi Nagar, Jammu branch of the J&K Bank Ltd. and allegedly dishonoured in Jammu.

3. Objections stand filed on behalf of respondent stating therein that the petitioner has been abusing the p