JUDGMENT 1. This petition is filed seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.2065/2009 pending on the file of IV Addl.JMFC, Belgaum. 2. It is the case of the respondent who is the Co-operative Credit Society that one Saroj had taken a loan of Rs.50,000/- and that this petitioner stood surety for the said loan amount and that since the said Saroj has not paid the loan taken by her, the blank cheque issued by this petitioner is filed up by the society for an amount of Rs.64,000/-and presented the same for payment. 3. Heard both learned Counsel. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he is neither the borrower nor there is any enforceable liability against the petitioner as on the date of issuance of cheque and that the presentation of the cheque of the petitioner, who is only a surety for the loan taken by Saroj is an abuse of process of law and hence the same is liable to be quashed. 5. The learned Counsel for the respondent submits that the Arbitrator of Co-operative Societies has already passed an award against the said Saroj and the sureties and the execution proceedings are pending. 6. The Hon’ble supreme Court in the case of Damodar S. Prabhu Vs. Sayed Babalal H. ( AIR 2010 SC 1907 ) has observed as follows: “We are also in agreement with the Learned Attorney General’s suggestions for controlling the filing of multiple complaints that are relatable to the same transaction. It was submitted that complaints are being increasingly filed in multiple jurisdictions in a vexatious manner, which causes tremendous harassment and prejudice to the drawers of the cheque. For instance, in the same transaction pertaining to a loan taken on an instalment basis to be repaid in equated monthly instalments, several cheques are taken which are dated for each monthly instalment and upon the dishonor of each of such cheques, different complaints are being filed in different courts which may also have jurisdiction in relation to the complaint. In light of this submission, we direct that it should be mandatory for the complaint to disclose that no other complaint has been filed in any other court in respect of the same transaction. In light of this submission, we direct that it should be mandatory for the complaint to disclose that no other complaint has been filed in any other court in respect of the same transaction. Such a disclosure should be made on a sworn affidavit which should accompany the complaint filed under section 200 of the Cr.P.C. If it is found that such multiple complaints have been filed, orders for transfer of the complaint to the first court should be given, generally speaking, by the High Court after imposing heavy costs on the complainant for resorting to such a practice. These directions should be given effect prospectively. 7. In View of the above observation and from what has been submitted by both the parties. I am of the opinion that the petitioner in this case cannot be proceeded against in the criminal side, since he is not the original borrower nor any liability exists against him as on the date of presentation of the cheque. The proceedings against him are misconceived and it is an abuse of process of law. 8. Accordingly. The petition is allowed. The proceedings insofar as this petitioner is concerned in C.C.No. 2065/2009 on the file of IV Addl. JMFC, Belagaum is hereby quashed.