Judgment :- 1. The petitioner is accused of offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the legal notice issued on 26. 2004 has been relied on at para 11. It is submitted that a copy of the same notice has been issued on 26. 2004 itself and under such circumstances, it must be construed that the notice dated 26. 2004 is the second notice. The cause of action arise after the issuance of the first notice and the complainant/respondent not only suppressed the issuance of the earlier notice but relied on the second notice dated 26. 2004, which has caused great prejudice to the petitioner and thereby submits that this is a fit case to quash the proceedings. 3. Per contra, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent submits that since there was a delay in acceptance of the notice issued on earlier occasion dated 26. 2004, a copy of the same notice was sent by Courier. Even if the notice dated 26. 2004 is taken into account for the calculation of limitation, the Complaint has been filed well within the limitation period. Under such circumstances, no prejudice has been caused to the petitioner. 4. I have perused the materials placed on record, including the typed set of papers furnished by the petitioner. 5. The notice-dated 26. 2004 is only a copy of the notice dated 26. 2004. Even if the earlier notice is taken into account, cause of action arise on a particular date and from the date of cause of action, the Complaint has been filed within the period of limitation. 6. In such circumstances, I do not find any merit in the prayer to quash the proceedings. Accordingly, this Petition stands dismissed. However, the petitioner is at liberty to agitate these points before the Trial Court and the Trial Judge is directed to complete the trial within a period of three months from today. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.