JUDGMENT : 1. This petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr. P.C, to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.994 of 2008 on the file of learned Judicial Magistrate, Pattukkottai. 2. Heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned counsel for respondent. 3. In the present case, the respondent has once caused presentation of cheque and upon its return, issued statutory notice under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. Thereafter, he again has caused re-presentation and issued further notice on 13.05.2008. In preferring the complaint, he has informed the second notice to be merely a reminder and not statutory notice of demand under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act and moved an application for condonation of delay of 91 days in preferring the complaint, such period being calculated from the date on which his right to prefer a complaint accrued under the original notice of demand. 4. It is not in dispute that the notice caused on 13.05.2008 after subsequent re-presentation of the cheque made a demand for payment and the same has been served on the petitioner/accused. Merely because the respondent has contended that subsequent statutory demand notice dated 13.05.2008 was only a reminder and has fallen back on the original statutory notice of demand, it cannot be stated that his right under the subsequent demand notice on 13.05.2008 would be lost. 5. As there has been a delay of 91 days, if the statutory period for preferring the complaint is calculated from the original dishonour of cheque and the statutory notice issued consequent thereto, the respondent has sought condonation of delay for such period. If calculated from the second statutory notice dated 13.05.2008 the period of delay would be less. However, it is the contention of learned counsel for petitioner that he has not been put on notice before the delay in preferring the complaint was condoned. 6. This Court is of the view that even if a party/ complainant makes certain averments against his interest, it is the duty of the Court concerned to deal with the matter in proper perspective and proceed towards serving the cause of justice. 7. We have called for and perused the records. Cognizance in the case has been taken without causing notice on the petition to condone the delay in preferring the complaint. For such reason this Criminal Original Petition is allowed. However, doing so would not be the end of the matter. 7. We have called for and perused the records. Cognizance in the case has been taken without causing notice on the petition to condone the delay in preferring the complaint. For such reason this Criminal Original Petition is allowed. However, doing so would not be the end of the matter. The proceedings in C.C.No.994 of 2008 are not quashed on merits, but on technical grounds. The principles of Autrefois acquit or double jeopardy would not apply. It is open to the respondent to move a fresh complaint and in doing so, seek relief under the proviso to Section 142 Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. Consequently, connected M.P.(MD) No.1 of 2008 is closed.