JUDGMENT D.P. Singh, J. 1. The present petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. has been preferred by the petitioner Bhuneshwar Prasad against the order of Sri Deepak Baranwal, Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad dated 16.8.2004 in Complaint Case No. 815 of 2004, by which cognizance against the petitioner for an offences under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act has been taken and further summoned him to face trial. 2. The complainant M/s. Rakesh & Company through its Managing Partners Shri Satish Kumar Jaiswal, O.P No. 2 has appeared on notice and filed counter in this proceeding. 3. According to the petitioner, the allegation that he issued a cheque in favour of the O.P. No. 2 which was finally dishonored is not correct. The petitioner has disputed certain facts regarding the issuance of the cheque, its presentation before the bank for payment and further regarding dues between the parties According to him blank cheques were issued in favour of O.P. No. 2 by the petitioner during usual course of business. However the petitioner has specifically directed the bank not to make payment vide annexure-2 far back on 27.9.2001. It further mentions that the petitioner has been informed regarding this vide annexure-3 that the said account has been closed and lastly that the dispute regarding payments and dues for non submission of Form IXC of Sales Tax was brought to the notice of the opposite party vide annexrue-4. 4. These facts have been denied in the counter affidavit field on 4.1.2006. According to the opposite party, it is admitted fact on record that amount was due for which a cheque has been issued in favour of the petitioner under his signature. It is also asserted that the instructions given by the petitioner to stop payment vide annexure-2 and 3 are after thought as the cheque in question vide annexure-A admittedly in the handwriting of the petitioner including the amount, dates etc have not been denied. Learned Counsel further pointed that the petitioner vide para 5 admits that the notice regarding bouncing of the cheque has been served upon the petitioner on 23.4.2004 which fulfills the compliance of the N.I. Act under Section 138, 141 and 142 of the N.I. Act According to Sri Poddar the complaint filed on 5.6.2004 is well within time and limit. Learned Counsel further pointed that the petitioner vide para 5 admits that the notice regarding bouncing of the cheque has been served upon the petitioner on 23.4.2004 which fulfills the compliance of the N.I. Act under Section 138, 141 and 142 of the N.I. Act According to Sri Poddar the complaint filed on 5.6.2004 is well within time and limit. It was also pointed out that at no time the issuance of cheque has been denied which is admittedly not honoured and in that event the request vide annexure-2 made by the petitioner to stop payment of cheque in question amounts to an offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. Sri Poddar referred to Section 139, 142 of the N.I. Act in support of the argument regarding dispute of payments and non-issuance of the Sales Tax Form IXC. It was submitted that in absence of the payments no such form IXC could be issued. 5. Both sides have relied upon AIR 2004 SC 408. The counsel for the petitioner has further relied upon 2004(3) Eastern Criminal Cases 382 on the point of limitation. Whereas the learned Counsel for the opposite party No. 2 relied upon 1999 (4) SCC 253 , 2002 (2) SCC 642 , 2002 (7) SCC 150 and 2003 (3) SCC 232 Whereas incomplete accounts leading to dispute as well as closure of accounts has not been accepted as a valid ground to quash the proceedings. 6. From the facts brought on record by the parties and stated above. It is apparent that the issuance of cheque No. 012909 by the petitioner is not disputed except that it was issued in blank. It has also come on record that the accounts were closed far back in the year 2003 which was informed to the opposite party vide annexure-3 a letter dated 1.3.2004. The dispute regarding settlement of accounts vide annexure-4 has been issued on 21.8.2003. 7. On bare perusal of the provisions of 138, 139, 140 and 142 of the N.I. Act, it is apparent that once a cheque has been issued it is presumed that payment was intended. Therefore any circumstances in which the payment was not made and account was shown to be closed or insufficient to satisfy the payments would amount to an offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. Therefore any circumstances in which the payment was not made and account was shown to be closed or insufficient to satisfy the payments would amount to an offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. The facts disputed and asserted in this Cr.M.P. requires to be determined in presence of the parties in a regular proceeding. 8. The Honble Apex Court in 2006 (4) SCC 359 has laid down the criteria how the provisions of Section 482 Cr.P.C. need to be exercised sparingly, carefully and with caution and only when such exercise is justified by the tests specifically laid down under the Code mainly: (i) to give effect to an order under the Code (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of court, and (iii) to otherwise secure the ends of justice. Therefore, this power should be exercised to prevent abuse of the processes of the court but in no case to stifle a legitimate prosecution. It has further been laid down that high court should refrain from giving a prima facie decision where entire facts are incomplete and hazy, more so when evidence is not collected and produced before the court and the issues involved, whether factual or legal, cannot be seen in their true perspective without sufficient material. 9. In the circumstances, discussed above, I find that the disputed facts requires to be decided by a competent court only in presence of the parties in a regular trial. 10. Accordingly, I find that the prayer for quashing the cognizance is not maintainable. This Cr. M.P, therefore, stands dismissed.