JUDGMENT :

ALI MOHD. MAGREY, J.

1. This petition under Section 561-A Cr. P.C. has been filed by the petitioner seeking quashment of complaint and the proceedings pending before the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Baramulla in case titled Shahzad Ahmad Dar vs. Naseer Ahmad Dar, whereby the learned Judicial Magistrate has taken cognizance and issued process in terms of order dated 05.11.2012.

2. Case of the petitioner is that a complaint under Section 138 read with section 140 of Negotiable Instrument Act was filed against him before the Judicial Magistrate, Baramulla titled as Shahzad Ahmad Dar vs. Naseer Ahmad Dar. It is submitted that respondent (therein) has issued a cheque of Rs. 15.00 lacs which got bounced. It is submitted that Learned Judicial Magistrate Baramulla (hereinafter called “Trial Court”) took cognizance of the matter without recording the statement of complainant on oath as per the procedure envisaged under section 200 of Cr.P.C. issued the process in terms of order dated 05.11.2012.

3. It is further submitted that after taking of cognizance the petitioner appeared in the matter, recorded statement in terms of Section 242 Cr.P.C. It is submitted that petitioner (herein) in his statement stated that his some cheques were missing and regarding the missing cheques he had lodged a report before the concerned police station on 20.06.2012. It is submitted that a cheque was produced before the concerned Bank for withdrawal which in fact was one of the missing cheque for which the petitioner has already lodged a report in the concerned Police station.

4. It is submitted that the Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate Sopore also directed the police agency to investigate the matter in terms of Section 156(3) Cr.P.C.

5. Petitioner is aggrieved of the cognizance taken and process issued by the Magistrate which as stated has not been taken in accordance with law as envisaged in terms of Section 200 Cr.P.C. that there was a sufficient material before the court that the cheque was not issued for debt or liability and was in fact stolen one. It is submitted that the learned magistrate was required to reject the complaint thereby discharge/acquit the petitioner (accused) as is mandated under section 250, 253 and 369 Cr.P.C. therefore, the petitioner in view of the action of the learned trial court of which he is aggrieved of challenges the same on the grounds detailed out in the petition.

6. Heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the record and considered the matter.

7. Before going to merits of the case, the question is as to whether the complaint filed before the trial Court can be quashed at the threshold stage? The answer has to be in the negative, for the remedy under Section 561-A Cr. P.C. can be invoked/pressed into service only in the following circumstances:

(i) to pass orders in order to give effect to an order passed under Cr.P.C.

(ii) to prevent abuse of process of Court.

(iii) to secure the ends of justice

(iv) to prevent miscarriage of justice.

8. In the instant case, keeping in view the allegations contained in the complaint, it can by no stretch of imagination be said that the case of petitioner falls within the ambit/contours of section 561-A Cr.P.C. as enumerated above.

9. Since the Apex Court has held that power is to be exercised cautiously, carefully and sparingly and Court has not to function as a Court of appeal or revision. It has also laid down the parameters and guidelines in cases titled as K.L.E. Society and Others vs. Siddalingesh, 2008 AIR SCW 1993, A.P. vs. Bojjoori Kanthaiah, AIR SCW 7860 and Reshma Bano vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2008 AIR SCW 1998.

10. This Court has only to ascertain whether the allegations made in the complaint do disclose or do not disclose the commission of offences, if it does, then it cannot be quashed at its thresh-hold stage. It is not proper to scuttle away the investigation at its thresh-hold stage, if the complaint discloses the commission of offences, High Court should not inte