IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Misc. App. No. 595 of 2008 Shyam Sunder Jaiswal, S/o Sri. Gopi Chand, R/o House No. H/160, Nehru Colony, Dehradun. …… Petitioner. Versus D.K. Mittal, S/o Late Sri. Munnilal, R/o Subhash Nagar, Clementown, Dehradun. ..…. Respondent Mr. Ramji Srivastava, Advocate for the petitioner. None for the respondent. Hon’ble J.C.S. Rawat, J. Mr. Ramji Srivastava, Advocate for the petitioner. None for the respondent. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 482 Cr.P.C to quash the Cognizance Order dated 01.9.2006 passed in complaint case no. 1079/2006 moved under Section 138 of N.I. Act on the complaint of the complainant/respondent. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that there was an agreement between the parties and as per that agreement, the respondent would not present the cheque in question before the bank for encashment and the petitioner, in turn, would refund the amount against the said cheque after arranging for the same. Inspite of the said agreement, the complainant/respondent presented the cheque in question before the bank for encashment. The learned counsel for the petitioner also referred Para 3 of the complaint filed by the complainant/respondent before the trial court. The perusal of the record specifically reveals that the complainant/respondent himself has stated in the complaint itself that since the validity of the cheque was going to expire, he presented the cheque in question before the bank for encashment. If the complainant/respondent had not presented the cheque in question before the bank, he would have lost the entire money, which he had advanced to the petitioner. Thus, I do not find any force in the said contention. The learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that the complaint which had been filed before the court reveals that it was filed on 12.05.2006 whereas the affidavit in support of the said complaint was sworn and affirmed before the Oath Commissioner on 10.05.2006. Thus, the complaint does not confirm the requirement that the evidence should be filed after the complaint was filed. The evidence by way of affidavits is permissible under the provisions of N.I Act as well as under Section 200 & 202 of Cr.P.C.. The affidavit sworn prior to the date of lodging the complaint has no consequence and it is merely an irregularity. Further, production of evidence before the trial court will commence when the trial proceeds. Thus, this contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner also has no force. In view of above, the petition is dismissed in limine. However, the aforesaid observations shall not prejudice the merits of the case during the trial. (J.C.S. Rawat, J.) 17.09.2008 V.K.