Judgment Satish Kumar Mittal, J. 1. Petitioner-Ashok Kumar Mahajan has filed his petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for setting aside the order dated 05.12.2003 (Annexure P-1) passed by Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Amritsar as well as the order passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar dated 19.05.2004 (Annexure P-2). 2. A complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 dated 18.11.2000 was filed against the petitioner in which he was summoned. After putting in appearance before the Court, the petitioner filed an application for discharge. The said application was dismissed vide order dated 05.12.2003 by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Amritsar while observing as under:- "This question raised by the Ld. counsel for the accused that the present complaint has been filed in connivance with one Satpal Mahajan etc. is concerned, this question has no relevancy at this stage because all these facts would be clarified when the parties would lead evidence on record and further whether the accused was having any business dealings with the complainant or not or whether the cheque in question has been issued in discharge of his legal liability or not, the decision on all these points could be arrived at after the parties will lead evidence on merits of the case. At this stage no opinion can be formed on it. Moreover, when the notice was sent at a proper address and properly stamped, then it is presumed that it has reached it destination. Further this averment of the accused that his cheque book had been lost and he suspected conspiracy hatched by Satpal Mahajan and filing of the present complaint at his instance, all these things have relevancy only when the accused will lead some evidence on these facts. At this stage the Court is not having with him any material or document on the basis of which any opinion can be formed. So in these circumstances, the application stands dismissed." 3. The aforesaid order passed by JMIC, Amritsar was challenged by the petition in revision. The same was also dismissed vide order dated 19.05.2004 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the aforesaid complaint was filed by the respondent through its attorney. Therefore, the same is not maintainable. The aforesaid order passed by JMIC, Amritsar was challenged by the petition in revision. The same was also dismissed vide order dated 19.05.2004 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the aforesaid complaint was filed by the respondent through its attorney. Therefore, the same is not maintainable. In support of this contention, learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon two decisions, one rendered by Andhra Pradesh High Court in S.P. Sympathy V/s. Manju Gupta, 2003 1 AllICrLR 158 and another by the Bombay High Court in Dr. Pradeep Mohanbay V/s. Mingel Carlos Dias, 2000 3 AllICrLR 147. 5. This aspect of the matter has already been considered by the revisional Court. The revisional Court while passing its order relied upon a decision of this Court in Surinder Singh v. John Impex (Pvt.) Ltd., 1997(1) C.C.C. 81 wherein this Court has held that there is no requirement that complaint should be filed personally by payee or holder in due course. I find no reason to take a different view in the matter. 6. Thus, I do not find any infirmity in the impugned order.