Cr.MMO No. 211 of 2011 and Cr.MP No. 851 of 2011. 3.11.2011 Present: Mr. Karan Singh Kanwar, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. P.K. Sharma, Addl. AG and Mr. Anil Jaswal, Dy.AG for the respondent. The present petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short ‘CrPC’) read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed for quashing the proceedings arising out of a criminal complaint being criminal case No. 94/3 of 2009, Prem Singh versus Amratpal Singh @ Ajmer Singh pending trial in the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Court No.1, Paonta Sahib at the stage of evidence on behalf of the petitioner herein who is respondent before the learned Court below. The two grounds pressed into service for quashing the proceedings are firstly that whereas the two cheques each dated 21.4.2009 are said to have been drawn in favour of ‘Parm Sing’, the complaint has been filed by ‘Prem Singh’, meaning thereby that there is divergence in the two names and secondly that whereas notice(s) issued under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 have been issued seeking payment of Rs. 5 lac, the complaint has been filed for a sum of Rs. 1 lac. It is by now fairly settled that proceedings of the present nature which are akin to the proceedings arising out of a First Information Report (FIR) can be made basis for quashing only at the initial stage of the proceedings, that is, before framing of charge or service of notice of accusation. In the present case, the complaint was filed as far back as the year 2009, whereafter, notice of accusation was served upon the present petitioner and the matter proceeded further with leading of evidence by the complainant and is now stated to be listed for evidence on behalf of the present petitioner. In such circumstances, no lawful cause or basis is made out for any interference with the proceedings pending before the learned trial Court by resorting to quash the same at this belated stage. In so far as the two incongruities referred to hereinabove verging on merits of the case are concerned, I refrain myself from expressing any opinion on the same so as to obviate the possibility of any prejudice being caused to either case on behalf of the parties. However, suffice it to say that these contentions shall always be available to the present petitioner and he shall be well within his right to press the same into service when the matter is heard by the learned trial Court. In view of the above, the petition is dismissed. (V.K. Sharma) Judge. November 3, 2011. (cr)