IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.13804 of 2009 Date of Decision: 04.09.2009 Subhash Chander Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH Present: Mr.Rajesh Khandelwal, Advocate for the petitioner ….. Jasbir Singh, J.(Oral) This writ petition has been filed with a prayer to quash complaint dated 22.4.2006 (P1), summoning order dated 18.8.21006 (P2) and order framing charge sheet dated 16.4.2008(P3). Record reveals that when cheque issued by the petitioner was dis-honoured, respondent No.3 filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (in short, 1881 Act), against the petitioner. Vide order dated 18.8.2006, the petitioner was summoned to face trial. On putting in appearance by the petitioner, charge sheet was framed against him on 16.4.2008. Petitioner filed a Criminal Misc. application before this Court, against the order mentioned above, however, the same was dismissed as withdrawn. Thereafter, the petitioner filed CWP No.20026 of 2008, which was also got dismissed as withdrawn. As per information supplied, trial is near completion and it is fixed for defence witnesses on 5.9.2009. Not only this, before initiating Civil Writ Petition No.13804 of 2009 proceedings before this Court, as mentioned above, the petitioner had filed a Civil Suit for permanent injunction, with a prayer that respondent No.3 be restrained from misusing the blank signed cheque, issued by the petitioner. That suit was dismissed on 1.9.2008, by stating that the matter in dispute falls under the provisions of Section 102 of Haryana Cooperative Societies Act, 1984 (in short, the Act) and on account of that, plaint was returned by invoking the provisions of Order 7 Rule 11 (d) of CPC. The petitioner went in appeal, which was also dismissed on 4.12.2008. Thereafter, this writ petition has been filed. It is contention of counsel for the petitioner that in view of finding given by the Civil Court that the matter falls under provisions of the Act, respondent No.3 was not justified in initiating the proceedings by filing a complaint under Section 138 of 1881 Act and the Court had no jurisdiction to entertain that complaint. This plea was available to the petitioner when earlier, twice over, he came to this Court. As per information supplied, this plea was raised at that time, however, it did not find favour with the Court and the petitioner had to withdraw his Criminal Misc. Application and the writ petition. No fresh cause of action has accrued to the petitioner. In view of facts mentioned, this writ petition is dismissed. 04.09.2009 (Jasbir Singh) gk Judge 2