Judgment : ( 1 ) THE accused in C. C. No. 252 of 1990 on the file of Judicial Magistrate, No. II srivilliputhur, has filed this petition under Sec. 482, Crl. P. C. , praying to call for the records in the aforesaid case and quash the same. ( 2 ) THE respondent has filed the private complaint against the petitioner for offence under Sec. 138, Negotiable Instruments Act read with Sec. 420,i. P. C. The allegations in the complaint are briefly as follows: the accused borrowed Rs. 40,000 from the complainant and executed a pronote along with his brother on 13-5-1990 in favour of the complainant. When he demanded back that amount with interest, the accused issued a cheque on 13-9-1990 for Rs. 40,000. When presented for collection on 13-9-1990, it was returned with endorsement "refer to drawer", on 14-9-1990. The complainant issued registered notice on 26-9-1990 to the accused. It was returned with endorsement "no such addressee". The complainant issued another notice on 8-10-1990. The accused received it on 12-10-1990. The accused approached the complainant and requested grant of 15 days time to deposit the amount and requested the complainant not to take legal action. Believing the same, the complainant waited for 15 days. Then he presented the cheque on 30-10-1990. It was again returned with endorsement "refer to drawer" due to insufficiency of funds, on 31-10-1990. The complainant issued registered notice, calling upon the accused to pay the amount. The accused received it on 12-11-1990. He did not pay the amount. Hence, this complaint was filed on 29-11-1990. ( 3 ) MR. A. Packiaraj, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, would contend that while the cheque was returned on the first presentation, the offence was complete and that while so, the petitioner cannot present the very same cheque again and make a complaint for offence under Sec. 138 of the negotiable Instruments Act. He would further contend that there are no ingredients for making out offence under Sec. 420,i. P. C. He would further state that for offence under Sec. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the procedure is that of a summons case and for offence under Sec. 420,i. P. C. , the procedure is that of the warrant case and both cannot be clubbed together. ( 4 ) THE complaint is for offence under Sec. 138, Negotiable Instruments Act for the dishonour of the cheque with endorsement "refer to drawer" for insufficiency of funds on the second occasion viz. , on 30-10-1990. Regarding the first presentation and dishonour of the same with endorsement "refer to drawer", it is the positive case set out in the complaint that after the dishonour and sending of notice, the accused approached the complainant and made a request to again present it after 15 days and that he would deposit the amount by then and made a request not to take any legal action and because of that he kept quite and presented it for a second time. There is no bar for presentation of the cheque at a later point of time also and if it was dishonoured for the reasons stated in sec. 138 of the Act and the further requirements are complied with, certainly the offence is made out. The first presentation and dishonour of the same would not stand as a bar for the second presentation and commission of an offence under Sec. 138, Negotiable Instruments Act in respect of the dishonour for a second time. ( 5 ) REGARDING the next contention that there are no ingredients of offence under Sec. 420,i. P. C. , I have to only refer to the allegations made in para 4 of the complaint that the accused approached the complainant and requested him to grant 15 days time to deposit the amount in the bank and made a further request not to take any legal action against him. In para 5 of the complaint, it is alleged that believing this version, the complainant waited for 15 days. Thus by making a representation, he induced the complainant to refrain from taking any action but has not fulfilled the representation. The dishonest intention can be inferred at the inception when he made such representation. So it is not as if, the allegations making out ingredients of the offence under Sec. 420, I. P. C. are not made out in the complaint. So the complaint cannot be quashed at the threshold. Regarding the procedure to be followed, it is for the trial court to follow the procedure, according to law. So it is not as if, the allegations making out ingredients of the offence under Sec. 420, I. P. C. are not made out in the complaint. So the complaint cannot be quashed at the threshold. Regarding the procedure to be followed, it is for the trial court to follow the procedure, according to law. At this stage, no illegality can be inferred with regard to the procedure that the trial court may follow at the time of trial. That stage has not yet come. ( 6 ) IN view of the above, the petition does not deserve admission and is dismissed.