JUDGMENT 1. - By way of instant petition under Section 482 Criminal Procedure Code, petitioner has challenged the order dated 2.5.2003 passed by the learned A.C.J.M, Bali taking cognizance against him for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. 2. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the impugned order dated 2.5.2003. 3. The learned Trial Court found that a notice was given on 29.9.2001 but since there was no material as to when the notice was actually delivered to the petitioner, a presumption was drawn that it must have been served within a period of 7-8 days. As per the averments made in the complaint, if 7.10.2001 is taken as the date on which the notice was served, the complaint was filed within limitation on 22.11.2001. It is submitted by the learned counsel that in fact the notice was served on 4.10.2001. Petitioner has produced the photostat copy of the letter of the Post Master, Bhiwani which indicates that notice was served on him on 4.10.2001. It is a disputed question of fact as to when the notice was actually served on the accused. 4. It is well settled position of law that for the purpose of taking cognizance, it is only the averments made in the complaint that can be looked into. It will not be open for the High Court in exercise of powers under Section 482 Criminal Procedure Code to sift the material or entertain any material not on record before the Trial Court and quash the proceedings on the ground that no prima facie case has been made out. Reference be made to a decision of this Court in S.A. Nanjundeswara v. Varlak Agrotech (P) Limited, reported in 2002(10) SCC 249. 5. No case is made out for interference by this Court in exercise of powers under Section 482 Criminal Procedure Code. 6. Accordingly, the Miscellaneous Petition stands dismissed. It is, however, made clear that it will be open for the petitioner to raise such a plea before the Trial Court at the appropriate stage.Petition dismissed. *******