Hon’ble Yogesh Chandra Gupta, J. : Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.2. By means of this application, the applicant-Ramesh Chandra Pataoria is seeking to quash the proceedings of Criminal Case No. 3492 of 2010 (Aditya Narain Vs. Ramesh Chandra Pataoria), under Section 138 N.I. Act, pending before the A.C.J.M., Court No.8, Jhansi.3. Applicant- Ramesh Chandra Pataoria is an accused and opp. party No.2-Aditya Narain Misra is the complainant of the aforesaid case. The record reveals that the applicant- Ramesh Chandra Pataoria borrowed a sum of Rs.3,50,000/- from Aditya Narain Misra (opp. party No.2). After some time Ramesh Chandra Pataoria in lieu of payment of the said amount, issued a cheque in favour of Aditya Narain Misra which, on being presented on the bank, was dishonoured by the concerned bank for insufficiency of funds in the account of applicant-Ramesh Chandra Pataoria. In this event, Aditya Narain Misra through his counsel served a statutory notice on the applicant calling upon him to pay the amount of the aforesaid cheque. It is revealed that applicant did not make payment as desired by the notice, therefore, Aditya Narain Misra filed the aforesaid criminal complaint/case against the applicant under Section 138 N.I. Act in the Court of C.J.M., Jhansi along with necessary papers including the cheque in question and the copy of the notice served on the applicant. The complaint was initially registered as Criminal Case No. 13241 of 2009.4. The Magistrate after taking notice of the accusations made in the complaint, held an inquiry into the allegations. As for his statement under Section 200 Cr.P.C., complainant-Aditya Narain Misra filed his affidavit in support of the allegations of the complaint. The learned Magistrate by his order dated 18.4.2006 after considering the material on record summoned the applicant-Ramesh Chandra Pataoria for facing trial under Section 138 N.I. Act. It may be mentioned here that in pursuance of the summoning order, applicant/accused appeared in the Court, applied and was released on bail. Thereafter the applicant moved an application for recalling the summoning order, however, in the meantime, the case was transferred from the Court of C.J.M. to the Court of A.C.J.M., 8th, Jhansi. It may be mentioned here that in pursuance of the summoning order, applicant/accused appeared in the Court, applied and was released on bail. Thereafter the applicant moved an application for recalling the summoning order, however, in the meantime, the case was transferred from the Court of C.J.M. to the Court of A.C.J.M., 8th, Jhansi. Therefore, the application moved for recalling of the summoning order was taken up by learned A.C.J.M. By the order dated 22.1.2010, the application was dismissed observing that the Court had no power under law to recall the summoning order. Against the said order, revision No.31 of 2010 was preferred which also met the same fate and was dismissed by Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge (E.C. Act), Jhansi by order dated 13.1.2010. All these orders dated 8.4.2006, 22.1.2010 and 13.1.2010 are impugned in this application.5. The main contention raised on behalf of the applicant is that while taking cognizance, the Magistrate is under an obligation to examine the complainant on oath under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and an affidavit cannot be a substitute for the statement under Section 200 Cr.P.C. It is argued that the provisions of Section 200 Cr.P.C. are mandatory, therefore, summoning of the applicant/accused on the basis of affidavit is illegal and arbitrary, vitiating the complete proceedings of the case. It is argued that the summoning order is bad in law and, therefore, is liable to be quashed. I considered the submissions of both the sides and find that the submission on behalf of the applicant are misconceived. It is to be noticed that the Code of Criminal Procedure regulate the investigations and trial of all offences under the provisions of Indian Penal Code. Section 4(2) Cr.P.C. further provides that provisions of Cr.P.C. shall be applicable to all offences under any other law also but subject to any restriction contained in any such other special or local law which may provide contrary or differently to the provisions of Cr.P.C. It is not in dispute that N.I. Act is a special law which provides, of course, differently for taking cognizance of an offence under Section 138 N.I. Act. In this regard, provision of Section 145 of N.I.Act are relevant. Section 145 of N.I. Act is as under :”145. In this regard, provision of Section 145 of N.I.Act are relevant. Section 145 of N.I. Act is as under :”145. Evidence on affidavit.- (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure,1973 (2 fo1974), the evidence of the complainant may be given by him on affidavit any may, subject to all just exceptions be read in evidence in any enquiry, trial or other proceeding under the said Code.(2) The Court may, if it thinks fit, and shall, on the application of the prosecution of the accused, summon and examine any person giving evidence on affidavit as to the fact contained therein.”6. A perusal of this provision would show that it provides a procedure contrary to the Cr.P.C. for taking cognizance and trial of offences under Section 138 N.I. Act. It provides that for an enquiry for taking cognizance, the Court can take evidence through affidavits. There is no strength in the submissions of learned counsel for the applicant that Section 145 N.I. Act does not override the mandatory provisions of Section 200 Cr.P.C.?7. There is no merit in this application, therefore, it deserves to be dismissed and is, accordingly, dismissed.__________