Surya Prakash Kesarwani, J.

1. The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicant with the prayer to quash the entire proceeding of Complaint Case No. 380 of 2015 (Arshad Saeed Vs. Chand Mohd.), under Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act, Police Station Rakabganj, District Agra, pending in the court of Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 12, Agra as well as the order dated 29.04.2015. Further prayer has been made to stay the further proceedings of aforesaid criminal complaint case.

2. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and the learned AGA appearing for the State.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits as under:

(i) Complaint Case No. 380 of 2015 (Arshad Saeed Vs. Chand Mohd.), under Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act, has been filed in the court of Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate-12, Agra on 29.04.2015 i.e. beyond 30 days of the date of return of the complaint on 13.03.2015 by the Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Baadi, Dhaulpur, (Rajasthan). Thus, the complaint has been filed beyond limitation as provided by the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dashrath Rupsingh Rathod Vs. State of Maharashtra (2014) 9 SCC 129 (para 22).

(ii) Without taking evidence the applicant was summoned by order dated 29.04.2015.

(iii) Notice under Section 138 N.I. Act was not served upon the applicant and therefore, the complaint could not have been proceeded.

4. Learned A.G.A. submits that this application filed by the applicant is a glaring example of abuse of process of Court and to defeat the very object of Negotiable Instruments Act. He submits that from the record it appears that initially the complaint was filed before Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 1, Baadi, District Dhaulpur (Rajasthan) and the applicant was summoned on 25.09.2013 but the complaint was directed to be returned by the aforesaid learned Magistrate by order dated 18.03.2015. He submits that the complaint has been filed in accordance with law before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 12, Agra being Complaint Case No. 380 of 2015 (Arshad Saeed Vs. Chand Mohd.), under Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act, P.S. Rakabganj, District Agra.

5. I have carefully considered the submissions of learned counsels for the parties.

6. Briefly stated facts of the present case are that it appears that the applicant herein has given a cheque no. 246232 for Rs. 22,85,000/- dated 06.01.2013 drawn on State Bank of India, Agra Main Branch, Agra to the opposite party no. 2 pursuant to some agreement. The opposite party no. 2 presented the cheque in his bank which was dishonoured and an intimation of dishonour of cheque was given by the Bank vide memo dated 09.04.2013. Consequently, the opposite party no. 2 sent a notice to the applicant dated 02.05.2013 by registered post requiring the applicant to pay the amount of the cheque within 15 days of the receipt of the notice. The applicant did not pay the amount of the cheque. Consequently, the opposite party no. 2 filed a complaint case no. 268A of 2013 on 03.07.2013 in the court of learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 1, Baadi, Dhaulpur (Rajasthan) in which the applicant was summoned by order dated 25.09.2013. However, the Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 1, Baadi, Dhaulpur (Rajasthan) passed an order dated 13.03.2015 signed on 18.03.2015 to return the plaint to the opposite party no. 2 to enable him to file the complaint case before the appropriate court in view of law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dashrath Rupsing Rathod (supra). No material has been brought on record by the applicant that the plaint and the other documents were returned to the opposite party no. 2 on the same day. No material has been brought on record that when the plaint and other papers were actually returned to the opposite party no. 2.

7. In para 15 of the affidavit accompanying the present application, the applicant has stat