HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH. BILASPUR Writ Petition (Cr.) No.4840 of 2011 PETITIONER: RESPONDENT: Anil Agarwal, son of Shri Radhe Shyam Agarwal, aged about 46 years, resident of Village Neora, Tilda, Distt. Raipur (C.G.) Versus Small Industries Development Bank of India, a corporation established under Small Industries Bank of India Act, 1989, having its head office at 10/10 Madan Mohan Malviya Marg, Lucknow, (UP) and inter alia a branch at Chawla Complex, Devendra Nagar Road, Sai Nagar, Raipur through its authorized representative Shri Akash Pawar, son of Shri V.S. Pawar, Assistant General Manager, Raipur (CG). {Petition under Article 226/227 of Constitution of India} Present: Mr. Vivek Chopda, counsel for the petitioner. Sinale Bench: Hon'ble Mr. T.P. Sharma, J ORAL ORDER (25-8-2011) 1. By this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged legality and propriety of the order dated 7-6-2011 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raipur in Criminal Complaint Case No.397/2011, whereby the Court below has taken cognizance against the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 138 ofthe Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. 2. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner, perused the order impugned, copies of other documents and copy of theorder dated 8-8- 2011 passed by this Court in W.P.(Cr.)No.4441/2011 whereby liberty has been granted to the petitioner herein, to file fresh writ petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that by registering criminal complaint against the petitioner and by taking cognizance against the petitioner the Court below has committed grave illegality and has not considered the reply filed on behalf of the petitioner herein before the respondent which clearly shows that the alleged cheque was not for debt or any liability legally recoverable and only for security of loan. Learned ^^'^^. l' ^-rf%^ {iisy% - counsel placed reliance in the matter of Harshendra Kumar D. v. Rebatilata Koley and others reported in (2011) 3 SCC 351 in which the Supreme Court has held that High Court, at the time of quashing complaint under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, can quash complaint if materials relied upon by accused are beyond suspicion or doubt or which are in the nature of public documents and are uncontroverted. 4. The petitioner herein has not made his appearance before the trial Court and has not made his submission on the basis of some documents. After following the procedure prescribed under Chapter XV ofthe Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, on the basis of oral and documentary evidence, the Court below has taken cognizance against the petitioner of the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and has issued process against him. Para 6 of the complaint clearly reveals that the respondent hasreceived reply of the notice but the reply is misconceived and thereby the petitioner has explained the facts contained in the notice. The aforesaid facts areuncontroverted facts, but there is clear controversy relating to the facts mentioned in the notice. In absence of any other material or uncontroverted document, 1 do not find any illegality or infirmity in the order impugned or in the procedure adopted by the trial Court. 5. Consequently, the petition is liable to be dismissed and it is hereby dismissed, at the admission stage itself. No order as to costs. However, it is made clear that the petitioner is having other remedy available to him under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. 6. I.A.No.1 standsdisposedof. Soma Sd/- T.P. Sharma Judge