THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY CRIMINAL PETITION No.10819 OF 2010 DATED: 01-11-2010 ORDER: This petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., seeking to quash further proceedings in C.C.No.179 of 2009 on the file of the learned VII Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Rajahmundry. 2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor representing the 1st respondent-State. Perused the record. 3. Petitioner is facing prosecution for the offence under Section 138 r/w 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. 2nd respondent herein originally filed the complaint against the petitioner before the learned II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Rajahmundry, which was taken cognizance in C.C.No.994 of 2005. It is stated that subsequently the said case was transferred by the Court of the learned VII Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Rajahmundry and re-numbered as C.C.No.179 of 2009. Earlier, petitioner filed Crl.P.No.851 of 2008 under Section 482 Cr.P.C., seeking quashing of the proceedings in C.C.No.194 of 2005. This Court by order, dated 15-02-2008, granted interim stay for a period of four weeks and the same was extended by two weeks by order, dated 25-03-2008. Subsequently, final orders were passed on 22-04-2010 dismissing the said application observing that the Court is of the view that this petition cannot be entertained at this length of time and there are no merits in the petition. After C.C.No.994 of 2005 was transferred to another Court and re-numbered as C.C.No.179 of 2009, the present application is filed once again seeking the same relief of quashing of further proceedings. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon a decision of the apex Court in SUPERINTENDENT AND REMEMBRANCER OF LEGAL AFFAIRS, W.B., v. MOHAN SINGH AND OTHERS[1] for the proposition that rejection of prior application for quashing is no bar for filing fresh application and the same does not amount to review or revision. 5. Even otherwise, the only ground on which the petitioner seeks quashing of further proceedings is that cheques were lost and police complaint was also given and the police gave a reply that they could not be traced and the complainant after getting custody of the blank cheques somehow fabricated the contents on the cheques and filed the criminal cases. The question as to whether or not the blank cheques containing the signatures of the petitioner were lost and whether they were used by the complainant are all matters to be considered only at the time of evidence adduced in the course of trial, but not at this stage. The disputed questions of fact which require adjudication only on evidence that may be let in during the course of the trial cannot now be gone into. There are absolutely no valid or justifiable grounds for quashing the further proceedings in C.C.No.179 of 2009 on the file of the learned VII Additional Magistrate of First Class, Rajahmundry. 6. In the result, Criminal Petition is dismissed. _______________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J 01st November, 2010 Tsy [1] AIR 1975 SUPREME COURT 1002