ORDER : The petitioner is the accused in PCR No.29/2011 on the file of the Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Puttur, Dakshina Kannada. He has filed this petition to quash the proceedings. 2. At the request of the respondent No.2-Durga Prasad, petitioner-Lakshmi Prasad Rai advanced hand loan of Rs.5,00,000/-. Towards repayment of loan, respondent No.2 issued a post dated cheque for Rs.5,00,000/- dated 24.03.2010 drawn on Karnataka Bank Ltd., Puttur. On presentation of the cheque, it was dishonoured. The petitioner issued a demand notice calling upon respondent No.2 to pay cheque amount. Respondent No.2 failed to pay the cheque amount. The petitioner filed a complaint before the JMFC, Puttur against respondent No.2 for the offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I. Act in C.C.No.163/2011. Respondent No.2 appeared in the said case. Thereafter, respondent No.2 filed a private complaint against the petitioner in PCR No.29/2011 before the Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Puttur, Dakshina Kannada. The complaint is referred under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. for investigation and report. The allegations made out in the complaint are that the petitioner has stolen and forged the cheque and presented the same for collection. Immediately after coming to know of the private complaint filed by respondent No.2, the petitioner has filed the instant petition to quash the proceedings in PCR No.29/2011. 3. Admittedly, the petitioner has filed a complaint against respondent No.2 for the offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I. Act on the ground that the cheque issued by respondent No.2 for Rs.5,00,000/- was dishonoured. Respondent No.2 filed a case that the cheque was stolen, fabricated and presented for collection. During the course of investigation, the Investigating Officer obtained cheque that was presented in C.C.No.163/2011 and sent it for handwriting expert and obtained a report. Handwriting expert has opined that the cheque is forged. Respondent No.2 can secure that report in C.C.No.163/2011 and to establish his defence in the said case. The continuation of the proceedings in PCR No.29/2011 would be nothing but abuse of process of Court. The contention taken by respondent No.2 in the private complaint filed by him can be putforth in C.C.No.163/2011 a case filed by the petitioner against respondent No.2 for the offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I. Act. 4. Hence, the petition filed by the petitioner is allowed. The contention taken by respondent No.2 in the private complaint filed by him can be putforth in C.C.No.163/2011 a case filed by the petitioner against respondent No.2 for the offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I. Act. 4. Hence, the petition filed by the petitioner is allowed. The proceedings in PCR No.29/2011 on the file of the Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Puttur, Dakshina Kannada are hereby quashed. Respondent No. 2 is at liberty to ensure the report of the handwriting expert in C.C.No.163/2011 to establish his defence.