ORDER Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the opposite party no.2. 2. The present application seeks quashing of the order dated 26.11.2002 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhabua in Complaint Case No. 552 of 2002 taking cognizance against the petitioner under Sections 420, 406, 409, 468 and 120B of the Penal Code. 3. The Complaint Case was filed alleging that on 8.5.2001 a cheque for Rs. 12,294/- was given to accused no. 1, an Agent of the National Insurance Company Limited as premium for insurance of a bus of the complainant bearing no. BR 24P 7455. On 10.5.2001 the cover note for the insurance policy was issued. The bus met with an accident on 11.5.2001. The complainant intimated the fact of the accident to the Insurance Company. The Policy of Insurance having been issued in the meantime, the Insurance Company requested the complainant to deposit the policy document in their office for correction in the policy number. Thereafter the Insurance Company repudiated the insurance claim by intimating that the cheque given on 8.5.2001 towards payment of premium had been dishonoured. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the present was a case of contract for insurance. The premium was the consideration for the promise by the Insurance Company to indemnify the insured for any loss. The payment of premium by cheque, issuance of a cover note and policy were therefore all done in good faith. The cover note and the insurance policy were obviously issued subject to the encashment of the cheque. The bouncing of the cheque would relate back to 8.5.2001 when it was issued. The cheque towards payment of premium having been dishonoured on 3.7.2001 as informed by the clearing bank to the bankers of the Insurance Company there was never a contract for insurance. There could not be said to have been any insurance policy in existence at any time. The dishonour of the cheque for premium having been made aware before the Insurance Company honoured the insurance claim, there was no illegality in the Company retaining the insurance policy document which cannot be deemed to have come into existence. The result of the dishonour of the cheque, insofar as the complainant was concerned, resulted in a situation as if no policy had ever been issued. The result of the dishonour of the cheque, insofar as the complainant was concerned, resulted in a situation as if no policy had ever been issued. It was lastly pointed out that for the aforesaid reasons the complaint and the statement on S/A of the complainant was deliberately vague with regard to the date on which the insurance claim was made and the Insurance Company required deposit of the Insurance Policy. 5. Learned counsel for the Opposite Party no. 2 submitted that having issued the cover note as also the insurance policy, the act of the Insurance Company in requesting the return of the policy for correction in the number of the policy and then withholding the same allegedly on the ground that the cheque given towards payment of the premium was dishonoured is an act constituting an offence for which cognizance has been taken. Reliance was placed upon section 65 VB of the Insurance Act to submit that once a cheque was accepted and cover note/policy issued, there was a valid contract of insurance with attendant liabilities on the company and thus the act of withholding the policy on plea of correction of the number was clearly an attempt to cause wrongful loss to the complainant. The wrongful retention of the policy was causing much difficulty to the complainant in the Court at Chandauli (UP) where proceedings under the Motor Vehicles Act had been initiated by the third parties injured in the accident on 11.5.2001. It was thus submitted that the act of fraudulently taking back the insurance policy and denying coverage for the period 10.5.2001 to 9.5.2002 (being the period of insurance) was with the criminal intention to cause wrongful loss to the complainant by evading liability for claim that would arise under the Motor Vehicles Act. 6. This Court, after considering the submissions of the Counsels for the parties comes to the conclusion that there was a contract entered into between the parties for insurance of the bus in question. This contract was for a consideration to be valid for the period 10.5.2001 to 9.5.2002. The consideration was Rs. 12,294/- paid by cheque on 8.5.2001 as premium for the policy. The contract was contingent in nature. It was subject to encashment of the cheque given by the complainant. This contract was for a consideration to be valid for the period 10.5.2001 to 9.5.2002. The consideration was Rs. 12,294/- paid by cheque on 8.5.2001 as premium for the policy. The contract was contingent in nature. It was subject to encashment of the cheque given by the complainant. In the event of fulfilment of the contingency, i.e. the cheque being honoured, the payment of the premium being available to the petitioner, the contract of insurance would have continued as on encashment the payment would have dated back to 8.5.2001. It needs no emphasis that a contract of insurance is a contract in good faith. In the present case, this Court finds that the cover note and the cheque were issued by the petitioner in good faith contingent on the encashment of the cheque. The dishonour of the cheque on 3.7.2001 would date back to 8.5.2001. In consequence there was never any payment of premium. If there be no premium, consideration for the contract would be lacking. If there be no consideration there would be no contract. Since the dishonour of the cheque would date back to 8.5.2001, this Court finds no infirmity in the action of the Company in withholding the policy. Quite obviously the policy remained the property of the company in so far as the petitioner is concerned. The Insurance Company would be well within its right to refuse to either honour the policy or return the policy documents to the petitioner in the facts and circumstances of the case. The anxiety of the petitioner in instituting the present case appears to be an attempt to ensure that he is not left high and dry alone in the proceedings by third parties for claim under the Motor Vehicles Act. The institution of the complaint was thus not bona fide and was only an attempt to keep the Insurance Company under reins. 7. The liability of the Insurance Company under Section 64 VB to the third parties is the subject matter of different proceedings. The present criminal prosecution would not be maintainable at the behest of the complainant for an oblique purpose in the proceedings under the Motor Vehicles Act. This would clearly be an abuse of the process of law. 8. In the result the order of cognizance dated 26.11.2002 and the entire proceeding in Complaint Case No. 552 of 2002 against the present petitioner is hereby quashed. This would clearly be an abuse of the process of law. 8. In the result the order of cognizance dated 26.11.2002 and the entire proceeding in Complaint Case No. 552 of 2002 against the present petitioner is hereby quashed. The application is allowed.