Judgment :- In above-captioned two petitions, quashing of summoning order in proceedings under Section 138 of The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 is sought on merits. Since the quashing of the impugned summoning order is sought on identical grounds, therefore, both these petitions were heard together and are being disposed of together by this common judgment. At the hearing, learned counsel for petitioner had relied upon decisions in Urmila Kumari v. Rukmani Devi & Ors. 2013 II AD (Crl.) (DHC) 342, Manish Bhaskar v. State & Anr. 2009 [4] JCC [NI] 233, Geeta Srivastava v. Bhanu Sharma 2003 I AD (Cr.) DHC 526, Devi v. Haridas 2005 [1] JCC [NI] 23, Srikant Somani & Ors. v. Sharad Gupta & Anr. 2005 [2] JCC [NI] 138 & Girish Saxena v. Praveen Kumar Jain & Ors. 2007 [2] JCC [NI] 220 to submit that liability is only on the drawer, who had issued the cheque, and since petitioner had not issued the cheque, therefore, summoning of petitioner as an accused is abuse of process of the Court. Learned counsel for respondent No.1 has placed on record copy of trial court's order of 14th July, 2011, Notice framed under Section 251 of Cr.P.C. and the statement of petitioner recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. by trial court and had submitted that even the defence evidence has been closed and the matter is now coming up before trial court on 9 th February, 2015. Upon hearing and on perusal of the impugned order, the material on record and the decisions, I find that since the matter has now reached at the final stage before trial court, therefore, this Court is not inclined to exercise its inherent powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. as petitioner has an alternate and efficacious remedy to urge the pleas taken herein before the trial court at the stage of final arguments. In view of aforesaid, the above captioned two petitions and the applications are disposed of while not commenting upon merits, lest it may prejudice either side before trial court.