IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.20384 of 2010 M/S DREAMLAND PROMOTERS & CONSULTANTS PVT.LTD. THRU.PAWAN BHADANA S/O SH. RAJPAL SINGH, R/O KRISHNA APRA PLAZA, SECTOR NO. 18, NOIDA, UTTAR PRADESH ………….Petitioner Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR …………..Opposite Party ---------- For the petitioner : Mr. Arjun Kumar Adv. For the State : Mr. Maya Nand Jha APP For the complainant : Mr. Chittranjan Sinha Sr. Adv. 4. 16.05.2011 Heard the parties. The petitioner has sought quashing of the order dated 25.02.2010 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Patna by which he has taken cognizance under Section 420 I.P.C. and 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act. By the order dated 8.3.2011 this court had taken a holistic view of the situation and considered the stand of the petitioner that he was desirous of sorting out the matter out of court to avoid any further litigations between them. However, today the parties are at variance with each other with regard to the claims and evidently the matter instead of being sorted out is sought to be complicated further by the conflicting stands taken by them and, thus, this court is proceeding to hear the application on merits. 2 It has been submitted that the order of cognizance under Section 420 I.P.C. is time barred and the court was resultantly barred from taking cognizance also under Section 138 Negotiable Instrument Act. The next contention is that the complainant has made a grievance with regard to the 14 cheques even though only two of them were in business transactions between them whereas the rest were with other persons and, therefore, the complainant had no cause of action with regard to the rest 12 cheques of which grievance has been raised in the complaint by the complainant. On perusal of the complaint, I find that the act of cheating alleged in the present complaint is a continuous act and therefore, there can be no question of period of limitation. Moreover, as per the petitioner’s own admission that the complaint could validly have a cause of action with regard to two cheques, I am not inclined to interfere in the matter. The application is dismissed. Fahad. ( Anjana Prakash, J.)