Complaint titled as Nazir Ahmad Bhat Vs. Qamaruddin Sheikh came to be filed before the court of Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Sumbal, for the commission of offence punishable under Section 138 read with Section 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, on the grounds taken in the complaint. 2. Preliminary statements of complainant, namely, Nazir Ahmad Bhat and witness Fayaz Ahmad Reshi came to be recorded. After going through the complaint and preliminary statements cognizance came to be drawn and process came to be issued against the petitioner-accused. He caused appearance before the trial court till 12th October, 2006. In the meantime on 15th September, 2006 he filed this petition under Section 561-A of Criminal Procedure Code on the grounds taken in the petition. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner argued that complaint came to be signed and filed by the learned counsel for complainant. Thus, the complaint is not maintainable and is abuse of the process of law. The argument of learned counsel for the petitioner is devoid of any force for the following reasons: Whether the complaint is signed by complainant himself or by his counsel is immaterial for the reasons that Section 190 of the Criminal Procedure Code, for short Code, provides that First Class Judicial Magistrate can draw cognizance upon information received from any person or upon his own knowledge or even on suspicion that offence has been committed. It is profitable to reproduce Section 190 of Criminal Procedure Code herein, which reads as under:-- "190.Cognizance of offence by Magistrates.--(1) Except as hereinafter provided, [any Chief Judicial Magistrate and any other Judicial Magistrate] specially empowered in this behalf, may take cognizance of any offence-- (a) upon receiving a complaint of facts which constitute such offence; (b) upon a report in writing of such facts made by any police officer; (c) upon information received from any person other than a police officer, or upon his own knowledge or suspicion, that such offence has been committed..............................." 4. Trial court after going through the complainant and recoding preliminary statements came to the conclusion that cognizance is to be drawn and process is to be issued against the accused. Thus, it cannot be said that it is an abuse of the process of law. 5. It appears that complainant has also signed the complaint and appeared as witness and his preliminary statement came to be recorded. Thus, it cannot be said that it is an abuse of the process of law. 5. It appears that complainant has also signed the complaint and appeared as witness and his preliminary statement came to be recorded. There is also nothing on the file suggesting the fact that trial court has wrongly drawn the cognizance. 6. The exercising of powers under section 561-A Cr.P.C. is an exception and not the rule. This provision of law does not confer any new powers on the High Court. It prescribes following three circumstances under which inherent jurisdiction can be exercised by the High Court:-- 1) to give effect to an order under the Code; 2) to prevent abuse of the process of Court; and 3) to otherwise to secure the ends of justice. 7. While exercising powers under this Section, this court does not function as an appellate court or revisional court. Thus the inherent jurisdiction in terms of this Section is to be exercised sparingly, carefully and with great care and caution. 8. Applying the test to the instant case and while keeping in view the contents of the complaint, preliminary statements of the complainant and other witness, the learned Magistrate has rightly taken the cognizance and issued the process. 9. In the given circumstances, there is nothing on the file suggesting the fact that the complaint and issuing of process are in any way the abuse of the process of law. 10. In view of the above facts, this petition merits to be dismissed which is accordingly dismissed along with all connected Cr.MP(s). However, any observation made hereinabove shall not prejudice the rights of the parties in any way. Parties are directed to cause appearance before the trial court on 16th June, 2007. Petition is dismissed.