JUDGMENT : S.B. Shukre, J. Heard. Rule, returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent. 2. By this petition, the petitioner has challenged order dated 05/01/2011 passed in Regular Criminal Complaint No. 109 of 2010 by learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Achalpur thereby dismissing his complaint under Section 200 of Criminal Procedure Code for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 404, 506 of the Indian Penal Code against the respondent and also order dated 07/02/2014 passed in Criminal Revision No. 11 of 2011 by learned Additional Sessions Judge confirming the order of the learned Magistrate dated 05/01/2011. 3. It is the case of the petitioner that he had obtained hand loan of Rs. 8,000/- from the respondent and as a security for repayment of the hand loan, he had issued three blank cheques to the respondent with an understanding that in case the hand loan was repaid by him, the blank cheques would be returned by the respondent. According to the petitioner, an amount of Rs. 8,000/- obtained by him by way of hand loan was repaid by him on 29/7/2009 in presence of Anand Thorat and Arvind Garodi. But, the respondent did not return the cheques, although he accepted the repayment of hand loan. The petitioner also submits that on that day, the respondent had taken an excuse that those cheques were missing and, therefore, he sought time for return of those cheques till 05/12/2009. He submits that those cheques, however, were not returned by the respondent and, therefore, the respondent cheated the petitioner. He also submits that when he made repeated requests to the respondent for return of the cheques, he was threatened by the respondent with dire consequences and that is why, according to the petitioner, a complaint for taking action against the respondent for commission of offences punishable under Sections 420, 504, 506 of the Indian Penal Code was filed by him. He also submits that the impugned orders do not take into account the nature of allegations made by the petitioner against the respondent, which prima-facie constitute the offences alleged against the respondent. 4. According to learned Counsel for the respondent, whatever had been alleged by the petitioner is only by way of his defence and it can be appropriately considered in the proceedings initiated against the petitioner by the respondent under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act after the cheque in question was dishonoured. 4. According to learned Counsel for the respondent, whatever had been alleged by the petitioner is only by way of his defence and it can be appropriately considered in the proceedings initiated against the petitioner by the respondent under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act after the cheque in question was dishonoured. He submits that this complaint under Section 138 N.I. Act has been filed on 17/02/2010 and almost about 2 months thereafter the complaint being Regular Criminal Complaint No.109 of 2010 was filed by the petitioner and the date shows that the complaint has been filed as a counter blast to the complaint filed by the respondent against the petitioner. He submits that both the impugned orders having been passed in accordance with the settled principles of law, call for no interference. 5. Upon going through the impugned orders and also the material placed before me, I am of the view that there is substance in the argument canvassed on behalf of the respondent and there is no merit in the argument advanced by the learned Counsel for the petitioner. 6. Whatever has been alleged by the petitioner against the respondent is only in relation to the cheque, which has been signed by the petitioner and which has been dishonoured when it was lodged in the concerned Bank for collection of the amount represented by it. If it is the contention of the petitioner that no amount was ever intended to be paid by the disputed cheque and that was only obtained as a colateral security for repayment of the hand loan which was taken from the respondent, it would be only a matter of defence for him and which can be appropriately considered on merits of the case pertaining to Section 138 of the N.I. Act proceedings. Then, if it was really the case of the petitioner that respondent did not return disputed cheques to him after accepting the amount of Rs. 8,000/- on 29/7/2009, I do not understand as to why the petitioner waited for the arrival of date of 13/4/2010 to lodge a complaint against the respondent. The complaint under Section 138 of N.I. Act filed by the respondent was filed on 17/02/2010 and even, immediately thereafter, the petitioner did not file his complaint. 8,000/- on 29/7/2009, I do not understand as to why the petitioner waited for the arrival of date of 13/4/2010 to lodge a complaint against the respondent. The complaint under Section 138 of N.I. Act filed by the respondent was filed on 17/02/2010 and even, immediately thereafter, the petitioner did not file his complaint. The petitioner had issued notice on 07/12/2009 to the respondent making some allegations of commission of fraud by the respondent by not returning the alleged blank cheques to him and this notice was replied by the respondent on 31/12/2009 denying all those allegations. Even thereafter, the petitioner did not take any steps. Therefore, it appears that the complaint was only a counterattack to the complaint filed under Section 138 N.I. Act. In any case, whatever now being submitted by the petitioner would be the matter of his defence in the proceedings initiated under Section 138 of N. I. Act and that he would be getting appropriate opportunities in those proceedings to submit the same by way of his defence. Therefore, in my view, it cannot be said that any offences of cheating and threatening are, primafaice, constituted in this case. 7. Thus, I find that neither any illegality nor any perversity has been committed by the Courts below in dismissing the complaint. As such, no interference in the impugned orders in exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is called for. The writ petition deserves to be dismissed and it is dismissed accordingly. Rule is discharged.