ORDER 1. This petition is for impugning the order dated 29.7.2006 passed by JMFC, Dabra in criminal case No. 906/05, whereby the learned Judge has rejected an application filed under section 203 of CrPC by the petitioner on the ground that once the cognizance has been taken, the learned Magistrate is not empowered to consider the case for its dismissal under section 203 of CrPC. 2. The only question involved in the petition is - whether a complaint under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) before the expiry of a period of 15 days deserves to be quashed as being pre-mature? 3. To understand in better way, the relevant section 138 of the Act is reproduced herein-below: "138. Dishonour of cheque for insufficiency, etc: of funds in the account, -- Where any cheque drawn by a person on an account maintained by him with a banker for payment of any amount of money to another person from out of that account for the discharge, in whole or in part, of any debt or other liability, is returned by the bank unpaid, either because of the amount of money standing to the credit of that account is insufficient to honour the cheque or that it exceeds the amount arranged to be paid from that account by an agreement made with that bank, such person shall be deemed to have committed an offence and shall, without prejudice to any other provisions of this Act, be punished with imprisonment for (a term which may be extended to two years) or with fine which may extent to twice the amount of the cheque, or with both: Prov.ided that nothing contained in this section shall apply unless -- (a) the cheque has been presented to the bank within a period of six months from the date on which it is drawn or within the period of its validity, whichever is earlier. (b) the payee or the holder in due course of the cheque, as the case may be, makes a demand for the payment of the said amount of money by giving a notice in writing to the drawer of the cheque, (within thirty days) of the receipt of information by him from the bank regarding the return of the cheque as unpaid; and (c) the drawer of such cheque fails to make the payment of the said amount of money to the payee or, as the case may be, to the holder in due course of the cheque within fifteen days of the receipt of the said notice. Explanation -- For the purposes of this section, "debt or other liability means a legally enforceable debt or other liability." (emphasis supplied) It provides that if within 15 days of the service of the notice of demand the payment is not made by the drawer of the cheque, action under this provision can be taken against him. On perusal of the impugned order, it appears that notice of demand was issued on 29th July, 2007, although the same could not be served on the drawer, the petitioner herein and returned by the post office but on the basis of that notice, the learned Magistrate has observed in the impugned order that it was served on 2nd August, 2005, which has not been countered by Shri Narwaria during his argument. As observed in the order, it is also admitted by Shri Narwaria that complaint has been filed on 13th August, 2005, that is before 15 days of the service. On this ground, upon appearance by the petitioner before the learned Magistrate, he filed an application under section 203 of CrPC for quashing of the complaint, as the same is pre-mature. The application has been rejected by the learned Magistrate vide impugned order on 29th July, 2006, on the ground that he has already taken cognizance and issued process under section 204 of CrPC against the petitioner, hence he can't go back and review his order. Thus, the application has not been rejected on merits. Feeling aggrieved, this petition by the petitioner. 4. Thus, the application has not been rejected on merits. Feeling aggrieved, this petition by the petitioner. 4. The similar dispute came up before Hon. the apex Court in the case of Narsingh Das Tapadia v. Goverdhan Das Partani and another [ AIR 2000 SC 2946 = 2003 DCR 252] and thereafter before another Bench of this Court in the case of Dhiraj Singh v. Sardar Singh and another [ 2008 (I) MPWN 35 ]. On perusal of both, the judgment and order, it appears that compliant does not deserve to be quashed on the ground that the same has been filed before the expiry of the period of 15 days. The crucial point is as to when the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance and in such cases, the learned Magistrate can wait for taking cognizance. The documents filed before this Court in this case do not clear, as to on what date the learned Magistrate took cognizance. On asking, Shri Narwaria also could not inform the date on which the cognizance was taken. However, vide impugned order, it appears that cognizance has already been taken in the case. 5. In view of the above, the petition deserves to be disposed of with a direction to the learned Magistrate -- (1) Upon counting, if the cognizance has been taken after the 'expiry of a period of 15 days, the learned Magistrate will proceed further in the case from the stage on which the present case is. (2) In case, the cognizance has been taken by the learned Magistrate within the aforesaid period, in my considered opinion, as the learned Magistrate was required to wait for expiry of a period of 15 days in view of the observation of both the Courts quoted herein-above, then the proceedings shall stand quashed from the point taking cognizance and learned Magistrate will be at liberty to take cognizance afresh against the petitioner.