JUDGMENT 1. - The petitioner, Satya Prakash Mewara, has prayed for quashing of the proceedings pending in the Court of Special Judicial Magistrate N.I. Act Cases, Kota in the form of Criminal case No. 1282/2012 Aatma Ram v. Staya Prakash for offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. 2. Relying on the case of State of Haryana & Others v. Bhajan Lal and Others 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 , the learned counsel for the petitioner, contends that this case is covered by the Conditions No. 6 and 7, as given in the said case. 3. According to the Condition No. 6, where there is an express legal bar and engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party, this Court can quash a F.I.R. 4. Moreover, according to Condition No. 7, where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala-fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wrecking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge, the F.I.R./criminal complaint can be quashed. 5. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the criminal complaint filed by the complainant-respondent. 6. At the out set, it is pertinent to note, that the learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to show any legal bar en graphed in any of the provisions of the Code or the Act concerned, which should prevent the complainant from filing a complaint. Moreover, he has not been able to show any specific provision of the Act, providing for efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party. 7. The complaint has been filed under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. Obliviously, if a cheque has been dishonoured and the cheque amount has not been paid, the only efficacious remedy available to the complainant would be to file a complaint under Section 138 of the Act. 8. 7. The complaint has been filed under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. Obliviously, if a cheque has been dishonoured and the cheque amount has not been paid, the only efficacious remedy available to the complainant would be to file a complaint under Section 138 of the Act. 8. As far as the contentions raised with regard to mala-fide or malicious institution in order to wreck vengeance are concerned, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held in catena of cases, even if an F.I.R./criminal complaint is filed with an ulterior motives, the Court should not interfere with the F.I.R./criminal complaint. 9. At the initial stage, when the complaint has been filed before this Court and the prayer has been made for quashing of the criminal complaint, this Court is merely concerned with the allegations made in the complaint. This Court is legally bound to consider the allegations and to accept them as controverted facts. In case, the allegations do make out the ingredients of offences, then this Court in its inherent jurisdiction is prevented from interfering with the criminal complaint. 10. A bare perusal of the complaint clearly reveals that according to the complainant he had been paid a cheque of Rs. 43,60,000/-. When he submitted the cheque for encasement, it was dishonoured. Despite having served a notice, the cheque amount has not been paid to him. Therefore, essential ingredients of Section 138 of the N.I. Act are prima-facie made out. 11. For the reasons stated above, this Court does not find any merit in this petition. It is, hereby, dismissed. 12. Upon dismissal of the main petition, the stay application, filed therewith, does not survive; the same is also dismissed.Petition dismissed. *******