JUDGMENT S.S. Parkar, J. - This application is filed under section 482 of Cr. P.C. challenging the process issued by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 2nd Court, Mazgaon, Bombay in Complaint Case No. 105/8/94 filed by the Respondent NO.1 complainant against these petitioners. The said complaint is filed under the provisions of section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act as the cheque dated 27-11-1993 issued by the petitioners for sum of Rs. 50,000/-wasdishonoured when it was presented to the Bank on 24-12-1993. After the said complaint was filed the process came to be issued which is under challenge in this application. 2. Mr. Khandeparkar on behalf of the petitioners contends that the complaint has been filed mala fide and is not maintainable under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act because much before the presentation of the said cheque to the Bank on 24th December, 1993, the petitioners had issued notice to the Respondent No. 1-complainant dated 10-11-1993 i.e., before the cheque had become due on 27-11-1993 with a request not to present the same for genuine dispute in that behalf. According to Mr. Khandeparkar inspite of this notice they have wrongly presented the cheque and, therefore, as per the recent judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Ms. Electronics Trade Technology Development' Corporation Ltd. such complaint is not maintainable. 3. Mr. Mohite on behalf of Respondent No.1 has filed affidavit denying the receipt of notice by his clients. Mr. Khandeparkar has produced the xerox copy of the outward register maintained by the office of the, petitioners to show that such letter, in fact not one but two letters dated 10-11-1993 and 15-11-1993 were despatched by ordinary post to the complainant. 4. When the complainant-respondent has denied the receipt of the said letter it raises disputed questions of facts which cannot be resolved or decided in the proceedings under section 482 of Cr. P.C. Secondly when the case of the complainant-respondent is that of denial of having received the alleged letters or notices sent by the petitioners, the Magistrate had not defaulted in issuing the process. In such case if the petitioners were so confident they could have applied to the learned Magistrate himself for revoking the order of issue of process, instead of coming to this Court invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under section 482 of Cr. In such case if the petitioners were so confident they could have applied to the learned Magistrate himself for revoking the order of issue of process, instead of coming to this Court invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under section 482 of Cr. P.C. In fact when I the complainant has joined the issue of non-receipt of such notice the matter will have to be thrashed out only at the trial and not by way of application to either of the Courts. 5. In that view of the matter this application is liable to be rejected at the threshold and is thus rejected, in limine. Issuance of certified copy is expedited. Application dismissed.