JUDGMENT : 1. Petitioner in the instant petition, is seeking quashment of complaint titled Ghulam Nabi Hurra II. Shahnawaz Ahmad Lone, Wed by respondent under Sections 138, 142 of Negotiable Instrument Act as also process issued by the court of Judicial Magistrate pt Class, Sumbal, Sonawari, on the grounds detailed out in the petition. 2. Briefly put petitioner states that respondent has filed a criminal complaint on 20.10.2016 under Section 138, 142 of Negotiable Instrument Act, before learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Sumbal, Sonawari, on the contention of dishonour of cheques for Rs.2.50 Lacs, stated to have been issued by petitioner in favour of respondent herein. Legal notice, according to petitioner, was duly served upon petitioner by respondent and thereafter the complaint filed before the Trial Court. Further submission of petitioner is that he is a reputed businessman dealing with fruit business in District Bandipora and a law abiding citizen and has never indulged in any illegal activities and that petitioner has not issued any cheque in favour of respondent. It is averred that respondent is strange and is not known to petitioner and is not having any sort of business transaction with petitioner and that respondent has illegally flinched two cheques from petitioner and misled the Trial Court by suppressing and concealing the material fact by registering a criminal complaint. 3. Heard learned counsel for petitioner at length. Perused the record and considered the matter. 4. Learned counsel for petitioner states that respondent obtained receipt of memo dated 17.8.2016 from J&K Bank Naidkhai and missed the limitation specified by proviso (b) to Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act, therefore, respondent has no cause of action under law which has been miserably failed to be appreciated by the Trial Court by issuing process against petitioner. 4. Learned counsel for petitioner states that respondent obtained receipt of memo dated 17.8.2016 from J&K Bank Naidkhai and missed the limitation specified by proviso (b) to Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act, therefore, respondent has no cause of action under law which has been miserably failed to be appreciated by the Trial Court by issuing process against petitioner. Learned counsel further states that respondent has failed to show or demonstrate as per record available with Trial Court, any legal transaction in between petitioner and respondent, as such, provisions of Negotiable Instrument Act are not attracted and that respondent has failed to put on record before the Trial Court the registered acknowledgement provided by the postal office appraising about the statutory notice, which has been served to petitioner in due course of time in compliance to the provisions of section 138-C of the Act, therefore, inaction of respondent has failed to look into this aspect of the matter, which vitiate the process issued against petitioner. 5. It may not be out of place to mention here that inherent powers under Section 561-A Cr.P.C. because of their plenitude, are to be exercised rarely, sparingly and with due circumspection. The Court in view of exercise of powers under Section 561-A Cr.P.C. is not expected to hijack trial proceedings pending before Trial Court and assume its role to sift evidence and find out whether trial should proceed. It is only to prevent abuse of process of court and prevent miscarriage of justice that inherent powers are to be exercised. 6. The Apex Court In case State of Haryana v. Ch. Bhajan Lal, AIR 1992 SC 604 , has observed that the powers under Section 561-A Cr.P.C. should be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and that too in rarest of rare cases. It would be relevant to reproduce paragraph 109 thereof here:— “We also give a note of caution to the effect that the power of quashing a criminal proceeding should be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare cases; that the Court will not be justified in embarking upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint and that the extraordinary or inherent powers do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the Court to act according to its whim or caprice.” 7. The Apex Court in Padal Venkata Rama Reddy v. Kovvuri Satyanarayana Reddy, (2011) 12 SCC 437 , while relying on the case of Ch. Bhajan Lal (supra), has held:— “31 When exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code, the High Court would not ordinarily embark upon an enquiry whether the evidence in question is reliable or not or whether on reasonable appreciation of it accusation would not be sustained. That is the function of the trial Judge. The scope of exercise of power under Section 482 and the categories of cases where the High Court may exercise its power under it relating to cognizable offences to prevent abuse of process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice were set out in detail in Bhajan Lal (supra). The powers possessed by the High Court under Section 482 are very wide and at the same time the power requires great caution in its exercise. The Court must be careful to see that its decision in exercise of this power is based on sound principles. The inherent power should not be exercised to stifle a legitimate prosecution.” 8. The inherent power cannot naturally be invoked in respect of any matter covered by the specific provisions of the Code. It is only where the High Court is satisfied either that the proceedings initiated on a complaint, or an order passed under the Code, would be rendered ineffective or that the process of any court would be abused or that the ends of justice would not be secured, that the High Court can and must exercise its inherent powers under Section 561-A of the Code. This power can be invoked only in an event when the aggrieved party is being unnecessarily harassed and has no other remedy open to it. The power under Section 561-A Cr.P.C., is not intended to scuttle justice at the threshold but to secure justice. 9. This power can be invoked only in an event when the aggrieved party is being unnecessarily harassed and has no other remedy open to it. The power under Section 561-A Cr.P.C., is not intended to scuttle justice at the threshold but to secure justice. 9. The case set up by petitioner in the petition on hand with reference to challenge to complaint filed by respondent before the Trial Court under Section 138, 142 of Negotiable Instrument, supported with material and process issued thereon, does not form any ground for interference by this Court in exercise of powers under Section 561-A Cr.P.C. Admittedly, petitioner has discussed the evidence in the instant petition with reference to facts of the complaint, which even if taken, can form basis for his defence before the Trial Court. Whatever submissions qua non-adherence or compliance of statutory requirements, as alleged by petitioner against complainant/respondent, does not form a ground for seeking interference and showing indulgence in the present proceedings, which very conveniently can be pleaded before the Trial Court. 10. From the above discussion, the case projected by petitioner to seek quashment of complaint titled Ghulam Nabi Hurra v. Shahnawaz Ahmad Lone, filed by respondent under Sections 138, 142 of Negotiable Instrument Act as also process issued by the court of judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Sumbal, Sonawari, does not satisfy the requirement of Section 561-A Cr.P.C., the law on the subject and the case law cited hereinabove. 11. So viewed, the petition on hand does not call for exercise of inherent powers under Section 561-A Cr.P.C. and, is, accordingly, dismissed along with connected MP(s). Petition dismissed