1. The respondent has filed a complaint under sections 34, 211, 403, 409, 418 (385 read with 511) 477-A and 500 of RPC against the present petitioners before the learned City Magistrate, Srinagar. The process has been issued against the petitioners by the court to appear before it. It is under these circumstances, that the present petition under section 561-A has been filed. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners. 3. Despite service nobody appeared on behalf of the respondent. 4. While scanning through the petition, it is revealed that complaint has been filed by the present petitioners against the respondent under section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881. The allegations in the complaint are that the respondent issued two post dated cheque No. 8353146 dated 15-1-2003 and cheque No. 8353147 dated 30-1-2003 of Rs. 1,00,000/- each both drawn on Jammu & Kashmir Bank Ltd. Hari Singh High Street, Srinagar. These cheques were issued towards the liquidation of balance amount to the petitioners for supply of computers to the respondent. The said proceedings are pending before the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Patiala House, New Delhi. It is averred in the petition that in order to frustrate the litigation pending at New Delhi, the respondent has filed the present complaint only to seek revenge. 5. Bare perusal of the complaint reveals that the respondent has acknowledged that two complaints have been filed by the present petitioners before the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Patiala House, New Delhi. It is categorized in the complaint that the respondent did not owe money to the petitioners. The complaint filed before the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Patiala House, New Delhi under section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 is with intent to harass the petitioner and to cause loss to his reputation. It is further revealed that no amount has been payable. 6. The complaint reveals that it has been filed only to counter the case filed by the petitioner before the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Patiala House, New Delhi. The facts revealed in the complaint do not disclose any offence in which the cognizance has been taken by the court below. The basis of the complaint is that the litigation filed at New Delhi by the petitioners have been filed with the intent of causing loss to the reputation of the petitioners. This cannot be a ground for filing a complaint against the petitioners. The basis of the complaint is that the litigation filed at New Delhi by the petitioners have been filed with the intent of causing loss to the reputation of the petitioners. This cannot be a ground for filing a complaint against the petitioners. The pendency of the complaint at New Delhi and its outcome if resulting in the acquittal of the respondent can become a cause to file the complaint. Mere filing of the complaint, which is yet to be proved and enquired, cannot be the basis for filing present complaint. The trial court issued the process mechanically without examining the contents of the complaint. The process has been issued on the basis of the complaint filed as a vendetta to harass the persons. Averments do not disclose the necessary ingredients of the offences. The circumstance manifestly reveals that complaint was lodged to counter the complainant under section 138 pending before the court at New-Delhi. Reliance is placed on two judgments of Supreme Court namely: 1. Sunil Kumar V. M/s Escorts Yamaha Motors Ltd. Reported in AIR 2000 Page 27. 2. Punjab National Bank V. Surendra Prasad Sinha. Reported in AIR 1992 Page 1815. 7. Both the judgments states that the complaint has been filed with the intention to prevent the filing of criminal complaint against the complainant cannot be permitted as the intention is only to cause harassment to the persons and to seek revenge. 8. For the reasons stated hereinabove, proceedings pending before the learned City Magistrate, Srinagar shall stand quashed. Record of the court below be sent back forthwith.