ORDER 1. The order, under which cognizance of the offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I. Act, has been taken against the petitioners, is being sought to be quashed on the ground that the complaint, which was filed in the year 2005, was prematured. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that from the acknowledgment showing service of 'Demand Notice', it would appear that the notice had been served in the year 2006, whereas the complaint had been filed in the year 2005. 3. On the other hand, the stands of O.P. No. 2 is that the notice, which had been issued on 30/04/2005, had been served in the year 2005 itself and since, some figure of the date is not clear, this plea is being taken on behalf of the Petitioners, which cannot be allowed to be taken at this stage. 4. I do find substance in the submission advanced on behalf of O.P. No.2. This is not the stage to give any finding on the point, raised by the petitioners, rather it is to be looked into by the trial court. 5. The other prayer, which has been made in this application is for quashing of the order dated 10/09/2012, whereby non-bailable warrant of arrest and also process under Section 83 Cr.P.C. had been ordered to be issued against the petitioners after the application, filed under Section 317 Cr.P.C., was rejected. Further, the order dated 03/12/2012 has been challenged, whereby an order has been passed for issuance of permanent warrant of arrest against the petitioners. It was also submitted that the order dated 05/12/2012, though it has not been challenged, but from bare perusal of it, which is on the record, it would appear that an order has been passed for consigning the records to the record room without having any report relating to execution of process under Sections 82 & 83 of Cr.P.C. and, as such, it is quite bad. 6. 6. It was further submitted on behalf of the petitioners that one more dispute was there in between the parties, which had been referred to an Arbitrator and during that proceeding this dispute was also made subject matter of that arbitration proceeding and in that arbitration proceeding the amount, subject matter of this case, was paid and, therefore, the petitioners were under impression that now the complainant would not be prosecuting the complaint case and in such impression they did not appear before the Court below. 7. However, Mr. Choudhary, learned counsel appearing for O.P. No. 2 submits that it is true that one arbitral proceeding was there in between the parties, but in that case subject matter of this case was never in dispute before the Arbitrator and, therefore, any payment made in that proceeding was never the subject matter of this case. 8. Be that as it may, I am not entering into the controversy as to whether the subject matter of the instant case was the subject matter in the arbitral proceeding or not? However, at the same time it does appear that the process under Section 83 Cr.P.C., which had been ordered to be issued, does not appear to be in accordance with law as before issuing a process under Section 83 Cr.P.C., no order relating to the execution of the warrant of arrest or process under Section 82 Cr.P.C. had ever been received by the Court. 9. In that view of the matter, the order dated 10/9/2012, under which process under Section 83 Cr.P.C. had been ordered to be issued and also the order dated 03/12/2012 as well as the order dated 05/12/2012, under which the case was ordered to be consigned to the record room, are hereby quashed. 10. Under the circumstances, the petitioners are directed to surrender before the Court below within two weeks from today. On his surrender, if any bail application is filed, the same be disposed of in accordance with law after taking into consideration the submission made therein. 11. Thus, this application stands disposed of. Application disposed of.