JUDGMENT 1. - By this criminal misc. petition, a challenge is made to the orders dated 17th April, 2009 & 20th July, 2009 so as the complaint filed against the petitioner for offence under Sections 420, 467, 468 & 471 of IPC. 2. Learned counsel submits that on a complaint against the petitioner for offence under Sections 420, 467, 468 & 471 of IPC, cognizance of offence has been taken vide the impugned order. 3. The petitioner earlier lodged a complaint for offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short "NI Act") against the complainant herein. In that case, statements from petitioner side were recorded and accused was called for his defence evidence. His statements were also recorded and the cheque was shown to have been given towards security but the plea taken by the accused therein was not accepted by the trial Court, rather complainant herein was convicted for the offence under Section 138 of NI Act. The complaint against the petitioner was filed to come out from the offence under Section 138 of NI Act. The learned Revisional Court failed to consider the aforesaid while dismissing the revision petition. In the light of the aforesaid, the allegations for commissioning of offence under Sections 420, 467, 468 & 471 of IPC is nothing but as a counter blast to the complaint filed by the petitioner against the complainant herein, thus complaint as well as the impugned order be quashed and set aside. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the petition. None appears on behalf of the non-petitioner - complainant despite service of notice. 5. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 6. The petitioner herein earlier preferred a complaint under Section 138 of the NI Act. The statements of the petitioner and others were recorded followed by statements of the accused - non-petitioner herein. Therein, he did not make allegations for commissioning of offence by the petitioner, rather cheque was shown towards security. The non-petitioner - complainant was convicted after trial. The aforesaid fact is relevant in respect of the complaint against the petitioner when it is in regard to the same cheque. Therein, he did not make allegations for commissioning of offence by the petitioner, rather cheque was shown towards security. The non-petitioner - complainant was convicted after trial. The aforesaid fact is relevant in respect of the complaint against the petitioner when it is in regard to the same cheque. Looking to the order of conviction against the non-petitioner and the complaint against the petitioner was filed belatedly and, that too, after recording the statements of non-petitioner on a complaint by the petitioner for offence under Section 138 of NI Act, the order taking cognizance of offence impugned herein so as the order of the Revisional Court dated 20th July, 2009 deserve to be quashed and are hereby quashed and set aside along with the complaint. 7. This criminal misc. petition is allowed with the aforesaid. This disposes of the stay application as well.Petition Allowed. *******