IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.12673 of 2007 PREM MOHAN SINGH, SON OF LATE DR. NAGESHWAR SINGH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE KAWALPURA, P.S. MASHARAKH, DISTRICT SARAN AT CHAPRA. – PETITIONER Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2. DR. RAJIV KUMAR SINGH, SON OF LATE RAMANAND SINGH, PROPRIETOR, UPHAR SEVA SADAN, MUNICIPALITY CHOWK, CHAPRA, P.S. CHAPRA, DISTRICT SARAN AT CHAPRA. --- OPPOSITE PARTIES. For the petitioner :- Mr. S.B.K. Mangalam, Advocate For O.P. No. 2 :- Mr. Mrigank Mauli, Advocate Mr. Vinay Mistry, Advocate For the State :- Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhyay, A.P.P. ----------- 13 28.3.2011 The petitioner challenges the order dated 23.10.2002 by which the Court below has taken cognizance for offences under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act and Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code. The argument on behalf of the petitioner with respect to the allegations made in the complaint petition is that the averments do not disclose the date on which the Cheque was returned by the Bank, nor do the averments disclose the date on which the notice was issued to the petitioner for payment of the Cheque amount. As such it is clear that the provisions of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act would not be applicable in the facts of this case. I accordingly, quash the order taking cognizance dated 23.10.2002 in Complaint Case No. 215 of 2002, Trial No. 2461 of 2005, pending before the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Saran at Chapra as far as Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act is concerned. 2 Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that in fact the provisions of Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code are also not attracted in this case. As far as this aspect of the matter is concerned, it may be raised at the appropriate stage of the case and I am not inclined to interfere with that part of the order. This application is thus, disposed of. Sanjay ( Sheema Ali Khan, J.)