JUDGMENT Mr. Inderjit Singh, J.: - The petitioners have filed this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. read with Sections 138 to 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the NI Act’), for quashing of illegal, false and vexatious complaint No.14 dated 16.1.2012 (Annexure-P.1) filed by respondent in the Court of Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Amloh, District Fatehgarh Sahib and for quashing the summoning order dated 5.10.2012 (Annexure-P.3) passed by the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Amloh and also the further order dated 19.11.2013 (Annexure-P.5) rejecting the objections of the petitioners passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Amloh and for issue of orders and directions to proceed against the respondent for filing false and malicious complaint by misstating the facts solely to cause hardship and harassment to the petitioners by abuse of the process of law. 2. Notice of motion was issued in this case. 3. Earlier Mr. Samir Rathaur, Advocate has put in appearance on behalf of the respondent, but later on he absented from the proceedings. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and have gone through the record. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners at the time of arguments argued that the petitioners have given the cheque to the complainant, but it was returned as there was cutting on the date. The accused/petitioners gave cheque No.492975 dated 19.10.2011 for Rs.2,21,073/- to discharge its liability, but on presentation of the cheque, it was returned by the Bank as unpaid. Then legal notice was issued and the petitioners state that after receiving the legal notice, the petitioners prepared the bank draft bearing No.046207 dated 5.12.2011 for a sum of Rs.2,21,073/- in favour of the complainant, which was received by the complainant and got encashed on 20.1.2012. Then complaint was filed by the complainant. He argued that it is abuse of the process of law. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners also argued that though, they filed the application before the trial Court stating all these facts, but the Court dismissed the application by stating that the Court can only serve notice of accusation upon the accused on his service being completed. The Court cannot turn into a Court of revisional Court or review which Code of Criminal Procedure does not empower it to do so. The Court cannot turn into a Court of revisional Court or review which Code of Criminal Procedure does not empower it to do so. A copy of the order dated 19.11.2103 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Amloh, has been placed on record. Rather, the Court held that the payment qua the cheque in question, prima facie made, but the order of the Court qua summoning of the accused cannot be revived by this Court and the same could have been set aside in the revision by the learned Revisional Court. Learned counsel for the petitioners at the time of arguments placed on record the reply filed by the complainant, who is respondent in this case, which shows that the demand draft sent by the present petitioners has already been got encashed. The only plea of the complainant/respondent is that the said demand draft was received by the complainant through ordinary post and after the filing of the complaint and the accused is liable to pay the cheque amount within the stipulated period of legal notice dated 2.12.2011. As per the petitioners’ case the draft was prepared on 5.12.2011 after receiving the legal notice. Keeping in view the fact that the demand draft was prepared and sent to the complainant in pursuance of the legal notice itself shows that the proceedings under Section 138 of the NI Act now before the trial Court are nothing, but abuse of the process of the law. It is admitted fact that demand draft has already been got encashed by the complainant/ respondent. If there is any delay in receiving the demand draft by ordinary post, the petitioner is not liable to pay for that. There is nothing on the record to show that as to when legal notice was served upon the petitioner. 7. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the present case, I find that the proceedings in the complaint case are nothing, but abuse of the process of the law. Therefore, the complaint No.14 dated 16.1.2012 (Annexure-P.1) filed by respondent in the Court of Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Amloh, District Fatehgarh Sahib and all other subsequent and consequential proceedings arising out of the same are hereby quashed. ---------0.B.S.0------------ —————————