IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.467 of 2009 RAM EKBAL SINGH … Petitioner Versus 1. TATE OF BIHAR 2. Gopal Prasad … … Opp. Parties ----------- 2. 26.3.2010 Heard Shri Mayank Shekhar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Jharkhandi Upadhyay, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. After having considered the fact that the order of cognizance was passed without taking into account the compliance of the provision of Section 142 in its entirety read with Section 138 ( c) of the Negotiable Instruments Act under which certain acts, like issuance of notice and non-payment of the amount due within 15 days of the receipt of the said notice, are mandated, the order of cognizance appears completely in infraction of the above provisions of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The whole of the complaint petition does not even whisper of issuing a notice to the petitioner as desired by Section 142 of the above noted Act. The order of cognizance, as such, falls quite short of requirement of law as a result of which the whole proceedings initiated through it appears to this Court an abuse of the process of the court. The order dated 15.12.2006 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Muzaffarpur, in Complaint Case No. 2175 2 of 2006, Tr. No. 2263 of 2006 is hereby quashed. The petition is allowed. Kanth ( Dharnidhar Jha, J.)