Order K.N. Phaneendra, J. 1. The petitioner has approached this Court seeking quashing of the entire proceedings in CC. No. 549/2009 on the file of 3rd Addl. Civil Judge (Jr. Dn.) and JMFC, Udupi. 2. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner, and as well as respondents 1 to 3. Respondent No. 4 though represented the counsel, remained absent. Respondents 1 to 3 have filed a private complaint in P.C. No. 747/2008, which is subsequently culminated in CC No. 549/2009 on the file of 3rd Addl. Civil Judge (Jr. Dn.) and JMFC, Udupi, under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. for the offence punishable under Section138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, against the petitioner, on the allegation that the petitioner herein had issued a cheque dated 13.8.2008 bearing No. 70837 for a sum of Rs. 3,35,000/- drawn on her bankers, for having purchased the medical equipments from respondents 1 to 3 which are listed out at paragraph No. 2 of the complaint. 3. It is said that, for repayment of the sale consideration amount, the said cheque was issued and the said cheque on presentation returned with a shara "fund insufficient, thereafter, in compliance of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the respondents 1 to 3 having issued a legal notice under the registered post on 24.9.2008, and the same was returned to the sender as refused. Relying upon deemed service, a complaint came to be lodged on 28.10.2008. 4. On receipt of the said complaint, the learned Magistrate recorded the sworn statement of the complainant and came to the conclusion that, there is prima facie case made out. Hence, issued summons against the petitioner herein. Against which order, the present petition is filed for quashing of the said proceedings. 5. Learned counsel for respondents 1 to 3 has specifically contended that respondents 1 to 3 have complied with Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and there is absolutely no procedural illegality or irregularity committed by the learned Magistrate in issuing summons. Therefore, this Court while exercising powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., cannot quash such proceedings. 6. 5. Learned counsel for respondents 1 to 3 has specifically contended that respondents 1 to 3 have complied with Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and there is absolutely no procedural illegality or irregularity committed by the learned Magistrate in issuing summons. Therefore, this Court while exercising powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., cannot quash such proceedings. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has strenuously contended that the transaction between the respondents 1 to 3 is admitted and she has purchased certain articles from respondents 1 to 3, but the contention of the leaned counsel for the petitioner is that, the said purchase was from respondent No. 4 and respondent No. 4 was intimated later that one of the article supplied i.e. Microscope was faulty one. Therefore, the said faulty microscope has to be taken back. It is further contended that respondent No. 4 headed to the request of the petitioner and taken back the said microscope and intimated the same to respondents 1 to 3. Further added to that, the cheque issued by the petitioner in favour of respondents 1 to 3 was assured to be returned at the earliest by respondent No. 4. However, respondent No. 4 did not return the said cheque issued by the petitioner in favour of respondents 1 to 3 to the extent of Rs. 3,35,000/-. It is further contended by the learned counsel that respondent No. 4, as a security for return of the said cheque, has issued his personal cheque for the same amount in favour of the petitioner herein. Further he contends that, the said microscope has subsequently sold to somebody for a sum of Rs. 3,35,000/- and the respondent No. 4 has stated before the petitioner that the said amount has been deposited into the account of respondents 1 to 3. However, these facts were denied by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 7. The above said factual aspects disclosed that the petitioner is having a good defence as per the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner, but the question before this Court is that, considering those disputed facts, whether this Court can quash the entire proceedings before the trial Court while exercising the powers under Section 482, in my opinion, the Court cannot rely upon the materials which are disputed and quash the proceedings. The defence taken by the petitioner who is the accused before the trial Court has to be established before the trial Court for the simple reason, that, once the cheque is admitted and issued in favour of respondents 1 to 3, that raises a presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, that the said cheque was issued for repayment of any debt or any part of the debt by the owner of the cheque. When such initial presumption is drawn in favour of the complainant, it throws the burden on the accused to establish that there was absolutely no offence committed by the accused nor any debt or liability was in existence at the time of issuance of cheque or at the time of presentation of the cheque. Whatever may be the defence that has been taken by the accused, that has to be proved before the trial Court by means of producing cogent and convincing evidence before the trial Court. In the event of accused placing material before the trial Court and if the Court comes to the conclusion at the end that the complainant has falsely implicated the accused in the case, the Court can, not only dismiss the complaint, but also imposed heavy cost on the complainant. Therefore, I am of the considered opinion at this stage the Court cannot interfere with the proceeding before the trial Court. An opportunity is given to the petitioner to raise all the grounds before the trial Court which are raised before this Court and the trial Court has provide an opportunity to both the parties in order to prove their respective case and dispose of the case at the earliest. 8. As could be seen, the matter is of the year 2008, still the case is pending before the trial Court, because of the proceedings pending before this Court. Already sufficient time has been passed. The trial Court needs to bestow its attention to dispose of the case at the earliest. Therefore, it is just and necessary to direct the trial Court to dispose of the case by means of fixing the time. Hence, with these observations, I proceed to pass the following order: The criminal petition is hereby dismissed. However, the trial Court is directed to dispose of the case as early as possible on merits within six months from the date of receipt of this order. Hence, with these observations, I proceed to pass the following order: The criminal petition is hereby dismissed. However, the trial Court is directed to dispose of the case as early as possible on merits within six months from the date of receipt of this order. The petitioner is at liberty to make necessary application before the Court with regard to the jurisdiction of the Court also and the Court has to pass appropriate orders. Parties are directed to appear before the Court on 9th December 2014 along with a copy of this order and from that date, the Court has to take up the matter as expeditiously as possible and dispose of the same within six months.