JUDGMENT :- Heard Mr. K. D. Deshpande, learned counsel for the applicant, Mr. M. M. Agnihotri, learned counsel for the Respondent No. 1 and Mr. D. B. Yengal, learned APP for Respondent No.2. 2. By means of this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the applicant prayed to set aside the impugned order dated 21/09/2010, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Yavatmal in Criminal Revision No. 68/2006 and further prayed to quash and set aside the criminal proceedings in complaint case no. 5133/05, pending before the 4th Court of J.M.F.C. Yavatmal on the ground that it is highly illegal, bad in law as well as void-ab-initio. 3. The facts are that the criminal complaint was lodged by Shri. Arunkumar Chandulal Pobaru, Proprietor of Sarvottam Petro Marketing, resident of Jaju Nagar, Darwha Road, Yavatmal through his attorney Murad Mehahdi Mohd. Jiwani against Smt. Manjeet Kaur Bawa @ Harjeet Kaur Manmohan Singh Bawa for offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. 4. It is averred in the complaint that the accused Smt. Manjeet Kaur Bawa @ Harjeet Kaur Manmohan Singh Bawa was running business in the name and style as "New Sona Transport Agency" at Wani. She had requested the complainant to sell the diesel for her trucks being used for transport business. As per her requisition, diesel was sold on credit by the complainant firm. She had issued a cheque bearing no. 180055 drawn upon Bank of India, Branch Bhamani, Dist. Chandrapur, on 17/10/2005, for Rs. 5,82,261/-. The cheque was presented by the complainant in State Bank of India, Wani on 28/10/2005. The cheque was returned dishonoured with remark "Funds Insufficient". Thus, notice of demand was sent by the complainant through Advocate Shri Paraskumar T. Darda, by RPAD as well as UPC demanding cheque amount of Rs. 5,82,261/- as also notice cost of Rs. 300/- within 15 days. The notice which was sent by RPAD returned with remarks "Not claimed" after intimation returned to sender. Thus, with such postal remark, the envelope was returned while notice sent under postal certificate was received by the accused. The amount demanded was not paid within the stipulated period and, therefore, the complaint was lodged with prayer to punish the accused for an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Thus, with such postal remark, the envelope was returned while notice sent under postal certificate was received by the accused. The amount demanded was not paid within the stipulated period and, therefore, the complaint was lodged with prayer to punish the accused for an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. It appears that the complainant was intending to examine the officials from the Bank of India, Bhamani Branch as also officials concerned, from the State Bank of India, Wani Branch. After the complaint was verified on behalf of the complainant, the learned trial Magistrate issued process for an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The accused preferred a Criminal Revision Application to question the legality, propriety and correctness of the order as to issuance of process dated 12/12/2005 as also consequent warrant issued at Exh.19, by the learned trial Magistrate, 4th Court, Yavatmal. According to the accused, Manjit Kaur and Harjeet Kaur are two different ladies and notice was not issued to the accused. It was also contended that the complaint was not signed by the payee (complainant) but it was signed by the power of attorney holder for the complainant. 5. It was grievance of the applicant that the name of the accused was allowed to be changed by the learned trial Magistrate without giving an opportunity of hearing to the accused. As far as later contention is concerned, learned revisional Court relied upon ruling in the case of Waman Laxman Sawant Vs. Ashok Anand Sawant and another reported in 2005 ALL MR (Cri) 334 in which Court had observed that the Courts have incidental powers which are necessary for their survival and existence as Criminal Procedure Code has not been enacted to meet each and every situation which human ingenuity may create from time to time. Thus, considering the judicial discretion in Waman Laxman Sawant's case (supra), no fault can be found with the order as to correct the name of the accused in the cause title of the complaint. While issuance of process, the learned trial Magistrate was expected to have prima facie view of the matter on the basis of averments in the complaint to satisty himself as to whether there was sufficient ground to proceed with the complaint and issued process under Section 204 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. While issuance of process, the learned trial Magistrate was expected to have prima facie view of the matter on the basis of averments in the complaint to satisty himself as to whether there was sufficient ground to proceed with the complaint and issued process under Section 204 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Court is expected to take steps under Chapter XV of the Code of Criminal Procedure to examine the complainant and witnesses present, hear the complainant and then if the Magistrate feels that the complaint is groundless, he may dismiss it. On the other hand, if he is satisfied on the sufficient ground to proceed further, the Magistrate may issue process in respect of accusations made in the complaint by passing an order under Section 204 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 6. Process is issued by prima facie application of mind by the learned trial Magistrate, after he decided to proceed under Chapter XV of the Code of Criminal Procedure and, then if he is satisfied of the sufficient ground to proceed further, process may be issued. At this preliminary stage, the Magistrate becomes conscious of the allegations made pursuant to the verification statement of the complainant, if any, and upon hearing the complainant, if learned Magistrate finds prima facie case, he may issue process, since the trial for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is triable as a summons case or summary case. No hearing is necessary for the accused at this preliminary stage nor there is any need for to hear the accused at this preliminary stage, at the stage prior to issuance of process. Because, accused has no right nor the learned Magistrate has jurisdiction to permit the accused to participate in the inquiry at the stage prior to issuance of process. The accused has no right to intervene nor he is required to be heard on the question as to whether process should be issued against him or not. 7. The contention of the applicant is that she never met the complainant and, secondly, her name is not Manjeet Kaur but Harjeet Kaur Bawa and further that she was not served with notice of demand calling upon her to pay the amount due in respect of dishonour of cheque and her contention that cheque was not in her hand writing. The contention of the applicant is that she never met the complainant and, secondly, her name is not Manjeet Kaur but Harjeet Kaur Bawa and further that she was not served with notice of demand calling upon her to pay the amount due in respect of dishonour of cheque and her contention that cheque was not in her hand writing. All these defence contentions may be raised at appropriate stage in the trial Court, once she appears before the trial Court pursuant to the process issued against her for an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, she is at liberty to apply for discharge from the case or acquittal as the case may be after her appearance before the learned trial Magistrate. 8. For all these reasons, the application is devoid of merits and it is dismissed with costs. Application dismissed.