JUDGMENT 1. - The petitioner has sought the quashing of the criminal proceeding under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act in Complaint Case No.437/2007, pending before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (Senior Division) No.12, Jaipur City, Jaipur. 2. Mr. Manish Chand Gupta, the learned counsel for the petitioner, has contended that on 17.3.2007, the complainant, Mr. Gopal Mishra, had filed a complaint under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act against the petitioner. On 17.7.2007, the learned trial court had taken cognizance for the offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act and had summoned the accused-petitioner. He further contends that under the Right of Information Act, the accused-petitioner had filed an application before the Bank of Rajasthan Limited, Jhotwara, Jaipur to supply necessary documents regarding the cheque in question. According to the reply submitted by the Bank, the Bank had clearly stated that account No.101441087 did not belong to the complainant. According to the learned counsel, the reply given by the Bank demolishes the case of the complainant. Moreover, he claims that the petitioner had neither signed the cheque, nor a notice was served upon him. Therefore, no offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act is made out against him. 3. On the other hand, Mr. Peyush Kumar, the learned Public Prosecutor, has contended that according to the order dated 24.09.2008, the petitioner's application for reviewing the cognizance order was dismissed. Moreover, since the case has been pending ever since 2007, it must be coming to draw. Therefore, this Court should not interfere as the evidence has already been produced during the course of trial. 4. In rejoinder, the learned counsel for the petitioner has frankly admitted that the case is pending for recording the evidence of the defence. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 6. It is, indeed, trite to state that the jurisdiction under Section 482 Criminal Procedure Code for quashing a criminal proceeding is extremely narrow. Considering the fact that the trial court has already recorded the evidence of the complainant and the case is presently listed for cross-examination of the accused petitioner, the defences which are available to the petitioner would be considered by the trial court itself. In its inherent jurisdiction, this Court cannot consider a defence proposed by the accused. Considering the fact that the trial court has already recorded the evidence of the complainant and the case is presently listed for cross-examination of the accused petitioner, the defences which are available to the petitioner would be considered by the trial court itself. In its inherent jurisdiction, this Court cannot consider a defence proposed by the accused. Repeatedly, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that this Court should not interfere with the trial by accepting an alleged defence by the accused. Therefore, the petitioner is free to raise all the defences available to him under law before the trial court. However, this is not a fit case for this Court to interfere by invoking its power under Section 482 Criminal Procedure Code.Hence, this petition is devoid of any merit. It is, hereby, dismissed.Petition Dismissed. *******