IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.55808 of 2006 (1) Vishal Modi @ Vishali Gopal Prasad Modi, son of Sri Gopal Prasad Modi, Proprietor of M/s. Vishal Fabrics, (2) Gopal Modi @ Gopal Prasad Modi, son of Late Ram Avtar Modi, both of 199, Ist Floor, New Cloth Market, Ahmadabad, Gujrat – Petitioners. Vs. (1) The State of Bihar, (2) Sajjan Kahnani @ Sajjan Kumar Sitaram Kahnani, son of Late Sita Ram Kahnani, Partner of M/s. Mathura Saree Centre, resident of Bank Road, Sutapatti, PS Sadar, district Muzaffarpur – Opp. Parties. 7 25.4.2011 This application has been filed for quashing the order, dated 15.11.2006 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Ist class, Muzaffarpur in Complaint Case No. 1536/2006 by which cognizance for the offences under sections 465, 468 and 471 of the Penal Code has been taken against the petitioners. The allegation in the present case is that the complainant had issued four Cheques to the petitioner. Three Cheques were for Rs. 5000/- each and the fourth Cheque was for Rs.6154/-. This Cheque was issued to the petitioner by the complainant as a result of business transaction between them. The allegation is that the petitioner has inserted a ‘0’ after ‘6’ and as such the Cheque is for the amount of Rs.60154/- instead of 6154/-. In the circumstances the Cheque bounced. It is admitted in the complaint petition that Criminal Case No. 1312/2005, dated 30.5.2005 under section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act was filed by this petitioner in which cognizance has already been taken. Counsel for the petitioners submits that the present complaint case has been filed in order to create a defence in the 2 case filed by the petitioner under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. It is further submitted that the complainant can always raise this issue before the court concerned which will be bound to examine as to whether the defence case is correct or not. The matter of manipulation in the Cheque can be decided in Cr. Case No. 1312/2005. On behalf of the opposite party, it is submitted that the complainant would be left with no remedy in case it is held that there is manipulation in the Cheque as no action can be taken by the court at Ahamadabad against the petitioner. It may also be noted that the Cheque which is said to have bounced is with the petitioner and has probably been annexed with the complaint petition filed by the petitioner. This court, therefore, would have no way of ascertaining whether there is interpolation in that Cheque as it would be an exhibit in the case filed at Ahmadabad. In view of the aforesaid fact the present proceeding and the order of cognizance is quashed with liberty to the complainant to file a fresh case in case there is a finding that there is a interpolation in the Cheque. This application is allowed to the extent aforesaid. In case such a complaint is filed, the question of limitation will not come in the way for accepting the complaint petition in view of the order of this court. haque ( Sheema Ali Khan, J.)