ORDER 1. The factual matrix lies in a narrow compass. In Criminal Case R.T.947/2014 (Neeraj Kumar v. Ajeet Kumar), the petitioner is the accused, whereas the respondent No.1 is the complainant. At the time of cognizance, the learned trial Court took cognizance without having resorted to adding evidence under section 200 CrPC. On filing an application on 19.12.2014, the same was disposed of by the learned trial Court on 7.2.2015 stating that the Magistrate has already taken cognizance and issued process. There is no provision in the Code of Criminal Procedure to recall such order and the Magistrate cannot exercise the inherent powers. Petitioner, hence, prayed that the cognizance taken by the learned Magistrate is without adding any preliminary evidence under sections 200 and 202 CrPC is not proper in the eyes of law. Therefore, the cognizance taken by the learned trial Court against the petitioner be set aside. 2. In Banshilal v. Abdul Munnar, reported in 2010(II) MPWN 72 , this Court has held that :- (2) Criminal P.C. 1973 -- Ss.200 and 482 -- non-examination of complainant-mandatory provision not complied with -- order of issuance of process can be interfered with under inherent powers -- no complaint can be quashed in its entirety. (2006)9 SCC 601 followed.” 3. In Maharaja Developers and another v. Udaysingh Pratapsinghrao Bhonsle and another, reported in 2007 CrLJ 2207 , it is held that :- (A) Negotiable Instruments Act (26 of 1881), Ss.138, 142 and 145 --Criminal P.C. (2 of 1974) Ss.200, 204 -- complainant -- alleging dishonour of cheque -- Trial Magistrate is duty bound to examine upon oath complainant and his witnesses before issuance of process -- even though solemn affirmation by complainant was present at foot of complainant. 2006(6) AIR Bom R 525, held per incuriam.” 4. Having gone through the contentions and the law laid down in the cases mentioned (supra), it is held that non-compliance of statutory mandatory process deserves to be interfered with under the inherent powers. But it would not be possible to quash the complaint in its entirety. 5. As a result, the petition is allowed in part. Order dated 23.5.2014 and 7.2.2015 are set aside. But it would not be possible to quash the complaint in its entirety. 5. As a result, the petition is allowed in part. Order dated 23.5.2014 and 7.2.2015 are set aside. However, the learned Magistrate shall be at liberty to make an enquiry under sections 200 and 202 of the Code and to ascertain as to whether there exists sufficient ground for proceeding against the petitioner in respect of the offence under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.