1. Respondent filed a complaint under section 138 Negotiable Instrument Act of 1881 (for short Act) against the petitioner before the Court of Judicial Magistrate Pattan on 30.5.2006. The Ld. Magistrate after taking cognizance of the offence under section 138 of the 'Act' issued process against the petitioner. On 16.10.2006 the statement of the petitioner-accused was recorded under section 242 Cr.P.C. Since the petitioner-accused denied allegations made against him the court directed the respondent-complainant to produce the evidence to prove the allegations made in the complaint. The petitioner-accused thereafter did not appear before the trial court on many dates of hearing and on applications being filed he was exempted from personal appearance only for some dates of hearings. On 13.2.2007 warrants were ordered to be issued for securing presence of petitioner. On 26.2.2007 the trial Court initiated process in terms of Section 514 Cr.P.C. On 19.10.2007 petitioner-accused again absented though application was field seeking exemption from personal appearance but the same was rejected by the trial Court and arrest warrant was issued. The statement of respondent-complainant was recorded by the trial Court on 11.12.2006. The statement of one Syed Mubeen Shah complainant's witness was recorded by the trial court on 15.9.2008 and statement of Mohd. Amin Malik was recorded on 30.3.2009. Statement of other witness of respondent-complainant was examined by the court on 14.6.2011. The statement of one Shabir Ahmed Bhat who appeared as witness of the petitioner-accused was recorded on 21.10.2011. Thereafter on 16.12.2011 statement of one of the witness of petitioner-accused Javid Ahmed was also recorded by the trial court. Statement of another witness of petitioner-accused was recorded by the trial court on 13.2.2012. After the closure of the evidence of parties on 31.3.2012 petitioner-accuseds statement was recorded under section 342 Cr.P.C. The Court vide its order dated 31.3.2012 fixed the case for hearing of final arguments. 2. Petitioner-accused filed this petition before this Court on 19.4.2012 i.e. after the date his statement under section 342 Cr.P.C. was recorded and case was ordered to be listed for final arguments. It may not be out of place to mention here that vide its order dated 31.5.2010 Ld. Trial Magistate rejected the objection raised by the petitioner-accused that the complaint would require to be dismissed as notice in terms of Section 138 of the Act of 1881 was served beyond time. It may not be out of place to mention here that vide its order dated 31.5.2010 Ld. Trial Magistate rejected the objection raised by the petitioner-accused that the complaint would require to be dismissed as notice in terms of Section 138 of the Act of 1881 was served beyond time. This order was not challenged by petitioner. 3. In this petition it is prayed that order of taking cognizance in the complaint dated 30.5.2006 be quashed and the subsequent proceedings be also quashed. Ld. Counsel for the petitioner challenged the trial court proceedings on the following grounds:- A. The preliminary statement of the complainant and his witnesses recorded on 30.5.2006 were recorded without administering oath to complaint as also his witness thus the order taking cognizance of offence and proceedings in the complaint are illegal and require to be quashed. Ld. Counsel in support of this contention referred to and relied upon the judgment of this Court reported in 2006(11) SLJ 571, 2006 (2) JKJ [HC] 393 & 2006 (II) SLJ 578,2010 (4) JKJ [HC] 257. B. The notice as required in terms of Section 138 of the Act of 1881 having been issued and served beyond the prescribed time, would require quashing of the entire proceedings. 4. The contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner would require to be answered in the background of the purpose sought to be achieved by making amendment in the Negotiable Instrument Act of 1881. 5. Before considering aforementioned issues it is appropriate to take notice of paragraph 27 of the judgment of this court reported in Priyanka Overseas Pvt. Ltd. v. J&K Bank Ltd. ( 2010 CRLJ 65 ,2009 (3) JKJ [HC] 214):- "Before parting with the case the observations made by this bench in case title Sunil Choudhary v. Alisha Enterprises 2009 (3) JKJ HC-162 in petition 561-A CrMP 69/07 decided on 22nd May 2009 are profitably reproduced as under:- "The amendment in Section 138 of the Act of 1881 was inserted by Act 66 of 1988 which made dishonor of the cheque for insufficiency etc. of funds in the account to be an offence. The purpose of making the said amendment is to achieve the solemn object of preventing fraudulent acts by borrowers of money. of funds in the account to be an offence. The purpose of making the said amendment is to achieve the solemn object of preventing fraudulent acts by borrowers of money. It is a common knowledge that when a person borrows money or incur debt and on refusal to re-pay the same, the only legal course open to the lender was to institute a civil original suit for seeking recovery of the borrowed money. It is also common knowledge that civil suit take some time in getting settled for variety of reasons. In order to ensure that the borrowed money is repaid without creating any hassles the amendment was made in the Act of 1881. The said amendment in the Act of 1881 reveals one other facet viz to enthuse and instill morale behavior in business dealings. Economy of nations and countries can survive only when the people follow morale values in economic dealings. If a person, for whatsoever, reasons advances money on the promise that it will be repaid, may himself be reduced to a pauper in case the money is not paid back. Assume a situation that business man is persuaded to advance substantial part of his money to another person as loan and the borrowed money is not repaid, it has the potential of collapsing the business of the lender. The immoral activities in economic field, has potential of not only collapsing business concern but has the monstrous power of destabilizing economic strength of countries. Such efforts of the unscrupulous borrowers have to be dealt with strenuously and law has to come down with heavy hand on such elements of the society. Viewed thus, the purpose to be achieved by amendment incorporated in the Act of 1881 cannot be sought to be defeated on the technical grounds. A person who borrows money and thereafter in the discharge of the debt or liability issues a cheque, and subsequently by any mode frustrates payment thereof, cannot be permitted to wriggle out of his liability to discharge the debt and commitment to repay the same on pure technical pleas. If the hyper-technical pleas are accepted then it will be not only protecting a fraud and an immoral act but would also tantamount to perpetuating the same through process of the Court. If the hyper-technical pleas are accepted then it will be not only protecting a fraud and an immoral act but would also tantamount to perpetuating the same through process of the Court. The provisions of law are to be interpreted in a manner which allow to achieve the purpose underlying such statute or provisions of Statutes." 6. The cognizance of offence is taken by a Magistrate in accordance with mandate contained in Section 190 of the Criminal Procedure Code. In this case clause (a) of 190 (1) of the Cr.P.C. is relevant as complaint has been filed before Ld. Magistrate. When the Magistrate prima-facie is satisfied that the allegations made in the plaint disclose commission of offences then he takes cognizance of the offence and thereafter proceeds to deal with the complaint in terms of the provisions contained in Chapter (XVI). 7. Section 200 Cr.P.C. provides that when Magistrate takes cognizance of an offence on complaint he shall at once examine the complainant and the witnesses present, if any upon oath and the substance of the examination shall be reduced to writing and shall be signed by the complainant and the witnesses and also by the Magistrate. Ld. Trial Magistrate after taking cognizance of the offence under section 138 of the Act of 1881 proceeded to examine the complainant and his witnesses. The record of trial court would show that the statement were recorded without administering oath. The effect of this infraction of the section 200 Cr.P.C. is required to be considered in the facts and circumstances of this case. The cognizance of the offence was taken on 30.5.2006. The statements were recorded and process was issued against the accused. Thereafter Ld. Trial Magistrate proceeded with the trial of the case. The accused after appearance before the trial court was examined in terms of Section 242 Cr.P.C. and on his denial of the allegations made against him the complainant was asked to lead evidence. The narration of the facts given in this judgment would show that not only witnesses of the complainant were examined but even witnesses of the petitioner were also examined and thereafter case was ordered to be listed for final arguments. It is after this stage that the present petition has been filed. The narration of the facts given in this judgment would show that not only witnesses of the complainant were examined but even witnesses of the petitioner were also examined and thereafter case was ordered to be listed for final arguments. It is after this stage that the present petition has been filed. It would now require to be seen as to whether in law because of infraction of section 200 Cr.P.C. as referred to above, the entire proceedings will stand vitiated. True it is that compliance with Section 200 Cr.P.C. is essential requirement of law. The purpose of recording preliminary statement of complainant and a witness on oath, at the time of presentation of complaint is to ascertain as to whether process would require to be issued against the persons named in the complaint. Ld. Trial Magistrate after being prima-facie satisfied that the complaint disclosed the commission of offence took cognizance of same and thereafter issued process to the petitioner. The petitioner did not join the issue about recording of preliminary statement of witnesses without administering oath before the trial court at any point of time. He participated in the trial of the case and as already stated the case has been ordered to be listed for final arguments. Had the objections be taken in the first instance before the trial court or before the superior court it could be understood that petitioner was prejudiced by initiation of Criminal proceedings against him and at that stage the order of issuing process may have been quashed. The petitioner in the facts and circumstances of this case is not prejudiced by infraction or non-compliance of Section 200 (1) of the Cr.P.C. The proceedings, which are at the fag end before the trial court, in this background cannot be quashed as that would result in miscarriage of justice. 8. Procedural laws are devised to facilitate the administration of justice. Infraction of any procedural law may not always and in all circumstances render the proceedings illegal. Non-compliance with Section 200 Cr.P.C. may become fatal for proceedings, if the objection is taken at the earliest. The infraction of Section 200 Cr.P.C. in this case pales into insignificance and will not have effect of vitiating the trial court proceedings, as evidence on oath, of the parties and their witnesses has been recorded and final arguments are to be heard. The infraction of Section 200 Cr.P.C. in this case pales into insignificance and will not have effect of vitiating the trial court proceedings, as evidence on oath, of the parties and their witnesses has been recorded and final arguments are to be heard. The initial defect in commencing the proceedings is thus cured. 9. Reference to the judgments of this Court by the Id. Counsel are of no help to him as it is not shown in these case the trial had concluded and was at the stage for final arguments. In one of the case immediately after issuance of process the matter was brought before this court as the petition was filed in the year 2004 against the order passed in the same year. In the second judgment at paragraph 2 it is stated that on 5.12.2005 the complainant, Sudesh Kumar Sharma along with his clerk and two others went to the house of Geeta Devi to demand payment of the fee due to the Advocate. Geeta Devi is alleged to have refused to acknowledge the complainant and instead used unparliamentarily language by calling him thief, thug and fraudulent lawyer. On this basis, a complaint was filed before Ld. Magistrate. The matter was taken before the court in the same year. The facts in both the cases thus do not synchronize with the facts of this case. The contention so raised accordingly fails. The contention of the Ld. Counsel for the petitioner that notice was issued and served beyond prescribed time also cannot be accepted at this stage and secondly trial court refused to review the order of issuance of process on this ground vide its order dated 31.5.2010. The said order has not been challenged and has attained finality. 10. Ld. Counsel for the respondent submitted that the delay of one day in serving the notice to complainant-respondents was on account of Sunday and holiday, therefore, notice would be deemed to have been served within time. This may be one of the reasons for passing order dated 31.5.2010. 11. In the facts and circumstances of this case it appears petition has been filed as an after thought and to derail the proceedings pending on the files of trial court. For the above stated reasons this petition is dismissed. Record be send back forthwith. Parties to appear before the Ld. Magistrate on 30.7.2012.