JUDGMENT The applicant-accused has directed this petition u/s 482 CrPC for quashing of the order taking cognisance against the applicant for the offence punishable u/s 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act and issuance of process for the appearance of the applicant before the trial Court. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that non-applicant No.2 (complainant) filed a private complaint in the Court of CJM, Mandsaur, against the applicant alleging that the applicant gave a cheque No, 026816 of the District Co-operative Central Bank Mandsaur on 15th February 1996 worth Rs. 40,000/-. It is stated that the said cheque was presented to the Bank for encashment by the complainant on 2.3.96 and the same was returned on 7.3.96 by the Bank with the endorsement of insufficiency of funds. On receipt of the said cheque from the bank alongwith the aforesaid endorsement, a registered notice dated 7th March 1996 was sent to the applicant and the same was returned to the complainant on or near 16th March 96 with the endorsement of the postman' 'not claimed". It is also alleged that on 15.3.1996 the copy of the same notice was also sent to the applicant Under Certificate of Posting and the said letter is not received back by the complainant till the filing of the complaint. On the aforesaid facts, on 2.4.96, a complaint. u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was filed against the applicant before the trial Court. The learned trial Magistrate, on recording the statements u/s 200 Cr PC and considering the documents filed alongwith the complaint, on 26.4.96 registered a case against the applicant for an offence punishable u/s 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act and ordered issuance of process for his appearance. Aggrieved the applicant has filed this petition u/s 482 CrPC. I have heard Shri Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri Vivek Sharan, learned Penal Lawyer for the non-applicant No.1. No one appeared for non-applicant No.2 despite the service of the notices on the said respondent. The only contention of the learned counsel for applicant is that after the receipt of the cheque in dispute alongwith the endorsement of insufficiency of funds, the alleged notice dated 7th March 1996 was not duly served on the applicant sent through registered post or Under Certificate of Posting. The only contention of the learned counsel for applicant is that after the receipt of the cheque in dispute alongwith the endorsement of insufficiency of funds, the alleged notice dated 7th March 1996 was not duly served on the applicant sent through registered post or Under Certificate of Posting. As such, the trial Court was not competant to take cognisance of the offence u/s 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. On perusal of the record, it emerged that after the return of the cheque dated 15.2.1996 from the bank on 2.3.1996 alongwith the endorsement of insufficiency of funds, a notice dated 7th March. 1996 was sent to the applicant by Registered AD. On perusal of the closed envelope of said notice received by the complainant it is found that the said notice was received back with the endorsement of the postman "not claimed" . From the perusal of the documents filed alongwith the complaint and from the statements of the complainant recorded u/s 290. CrPC it also emerged that a copy of the said notice was also sent to the applicant under Certificate of Posting and the said letter is not received back as yet by the complainant. In view of the aforesaid facts, at this stage. I do not find any grounds for quashing of the impugned order of the trial Court taking cognisance against the applicant for the offence punishable u/s 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act and order of issuance of process against the applicant exercising powers u/s 482 CrPC. Consequently, this petition filed by the applicant is devoid of any merit and substance and the same is accordingly dismissed without any orders as to costs.