2. This 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed with a prayer to quash the entire proceedings of Complaint Case No. 2120 of 2011 under Section 138 N.I. Act, police station Sadar Bazar Meerut, District Meerut pending in the Court of A.C.J.M., Court No.6, Meerut.

3. Brief facts of the case are that a complaint has been filed by Sanjay Agarwal-opposite party no.2 ( hereinafter referred to as the complainant) against the applicant alleging that on 4.12.2004, the applicant along with his uncle, namely, Sri P.D. Agarwal had come to the shop of the complainant and purchased some items for his house such as plywood, mica etc. after making the payment of the same went away. Thereafter on 14.12.2004, the applicant along with his uncle Sri P.D. Agarwal again came to the shop of complainant and purchased some goods for his house amounting to Rs. 2,25,106/- out of which Rs. 106/- was paid by him in cash and for remaining amount, i.e., Rs. 2,25,000/- he has given Cheque No. 250468 dated 15.12.2004 of the H.D.F.C. bank Ltd. in the presence of his uncle P.D. Agarwal and one Aman Gupta and had stated that the said cheque would be encashed on the presentation before the bank. On 15.12.2004, when complainant was going to place the said cheque for its encashment, the uncle of the applicant P.D. Agarwal had asked him on phone not to place the said cheque for encashment as the applicant does not have sufficient fund in his account and further asked him to place the said cheque in March, 2005 for encashment. Thereafter the complainant produced the said cheque through its banker on 1.3.2005 for encashment but the same was dishonoured by the concerned bank and a memo dated 5.3.2005 was sent with an endorsement that payment was stopped by the drawer. When the said cheque was dishonoured, the complainant gave a notice to the applicant through his counsel on 19.3.2005 which was replied by the applicant through his counsel on 24.3.2005, hence the present complaint has been filed by complainant alleging that the applicant has no intention to pay the amount in question and has deliberately issued the cheque in question on 15.12.2004 and gave a false advertisement in the newspaper that his cheque has been lost.

4. In the present complaint, the learned Magistrate has recorded the statement of the complainant and Sri P.D. Agarwal-uncle of the applicant and one Aman Gupta under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. and after having found prima facie case against the applicant summoned him by passing the impugned order, hence the present application.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the disputed cheque bearing Cheque No. 250468 of R.D.C., 29 Rajnagar Ghaziabad Branch of HDFC Bank Ltd. bearing the signature of the applicant was lost on 29.11.2004 for which he has given an information at police station Sihanigate, District Ghaziabad on 29.11.2004 itself. He also informed the concerned Bank about the lost of the said cheque on 2.12.2004 requesting the Bank to make stop payment with respect to the said cheque. Thereafter he also got a news item published with respect to the said cheque in a daily newspaper at district Ghaziabad on 7.12.2004. He further submits that after receiving a notice under Section 138 N.I. Act from the advocate of the complainant, the applicant sent a reply of the same through his advocate by registered post. He further submits that there was no debt or liability on the applicant of the opposite party no.2 and the lost cheque of the applicant was misused by opposite party no.2. The cheque in question was not dishonoured due to insufficient funds but it was endorsed in the memo of bank that payment was stopped by the drawer. He submits that no offence under Section 138 N.I. Act is made out against the applicant. In support of his submission, he has placed reliance on several judgments of the Apex Court, i.e., in the case of Ra