JUDGMENT : VIPUL M. PANCHOLI, J. This application is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Code’ for the sake of convenience) for quashing and setting aside the complaint being Criminal Case No. 16080 of 2012 filed before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Surat. 2. Heard learned advocate Ms. Kruti M. Shah for the applicants, learned APP Mr. D.M. Devnani for the respondent - State and learned advocate Mr. Hardik J. Jani for respondent No. 2. 3. Learned advocate for the applicants submitted that the impugned complaint being Criminal Application No. 872 of 2011, which culminated into Criminal Case No. 16080 of 2012, has been filed by the present respondent No. 2 - original complainant before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 506(2), 392, 393, 394, 120B and 114 of Indian Penal Code against the present applicants. It is alleged in the said complaint that with regard to the business transaction on the date of the incident i.e. on 21.09.2010, the applicants accused came to the office of the complainant and forcibly took away 10 signed cheques from the drawer of the complainant for which the complainant has given a written complaint to Salabatpura Police Station and to the Commissioner of Police, Surat city. However, no action was taken by the police authority and therefore a complaint is filed before the learned JMFC, Surat. It is also stated in the said compliant that the accused have also filed various complaints under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act against the complainant as well as FIR being C.R.No.I-244 of 2010 was also filed against the complainant before Salabatpura Police Station though the complainant is innocent. Thus, it is alleged that the applicants - accused have committed the alleged offence. 4. The learned Magistrate initially passed an order of inquiry under section 202 of the Code and after examining the witnesses as well as the verification of complainant and documentary evidences produced on record, the learned Magistrate issued the process by an order dated 29.05.2012 Therefore, the said complaint is registered as Criminal Case No. 16080 of 2012. 5. Learned advocate Ms. 5. Learned advocate Ms. Shah thereafter contended that the impugned complaint is nothing but gross abuse of process of the Court and is nothing but a counter blast to the complaints filed by the applicant No. 2 against the complainant under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act as well as the FIR filed against the respondent No. 2 and other two accused before Salabatpura Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 409, 420, 120B and 114 of IPC. It is therefore submitted that the impugned complaint be quashed and set aside. 6. Learned advocate Ms. Shah thereafter contended that there is a gross delay in filing the impugned compliant against the applicants and therefore on this ground also the same be quashed and set aside. From the allegations made in the impugned complaint, it is pointed out that even as per the impugned complaint, the incident has taken place on 21.09.2010 and for the first time written complaint was given to the concerned police station and to the Commissioner of Police in February 2011 and before that the applicant No. 2 has already filed complaints under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act as well as one FIR against the respondent No. 2 - original complainant. It is therefore requested that the impugned complaint is gross abuse of process of the Court and therefore in the interest of justice the same be quashed and set aside. 7. On the other hand, learned advocate Mr. Hardik Jani appearing for the respondent No. 2-original complainant opposed this application and submitted that the ingredients of the alleged offences are made out in the impugned complaint and therefore merely because the complaint is filed after a period of 11 months from the date of incident, the same may not be quashed and set aside. 8. Learned advocate Mr. Hardik Jani appearing for the respondent No. 2-original complainant opposed this application and submitted that the ingredients of the alleged offences are made out in the impugned complaint and therefore merely because the complaint is filed after a period of 11 months from the date of incident, the same may not be quashed and set aside. 8. Learned advocate Mr. Jani further pointed out that even in the FIR filed by the applicant No. 2 against the respondent No. 2 - original complainant before Salabatpura Police Station, when the charge-sheet is filed by the Investigating Officer on 11.01.2012, which is produced at page 28 of the compilation, it is clear that the role of the present respondent No. 2, even as per the case of the applicant No. 2, is that the respondent No. 2 was a broker who stood as a guarantor for the goods supplied by the applicant No. 2 to the other accused of the said FIR. The other two accused viz. Suresh Agrawal and Nitinkumar Suresh Agrawal have not paid the amount to the applicant No. 2 and therefore, the applicants have forcibly obtained 10 cheques signed by the respondent No. 2 original complainant. There was no other transaction with the respondent No. 2 complainant and therefore from the said documentary evidence, it is clear that the allegations made by the complainant in the impugned complaint are correct. Hence, this Court may not exercise the powers under Section 482 of the Code at this stage. He, therefore, urged that this application be dismissed. 9. Learned APP Mr. Devnani has also supported the submissions canvassed on behalf of learned advocate Mr. Jani and requested that this application be dismissed. 10. Having heard the learned advocates appearing for the parties and having gone through the material produced on record, it has emerged that the applicant No. 2 has filed different complaints under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act against the present respondent No. 2 original complainant for various transactions which have taken place between them. It is specifically alleged in the said written complaints that applicant No. 2 had supplied goods to respondent No. 2 - original complainant by various bill numbers/challans. For the said transactions different cheques were given by the respondent No. 2. When the said cheques were deposited in the concerned bank for clearing, the said cheques were returned with an endorsement ‘fund insufficient’. For the said transactions different cheques were given by the respondent No. 2. When the said cheques were deposited in the concerned bank for clearing, the said cheques were returned with an endorsement ‘fund insufficient’. Thereafter the applicant No. 2 has also given a statutory notice. However, no amount was paid to the applicant No. 2 and therefore in December 2010, complaints under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act are filed against the respondent No. 2. It is further revealed that FIR being C.R.No.I-244/2010 is also filed by the applicant No. 2 against the respondent No. 2 and two others for the offences under Sections 406, 409, 420, 120B and 114 of IPC. In the said FIR also, after investigation, the Investigating Officer has filed charge-sheet against all the three accused including the respondent No. 2. The said FIR was lodged on 08.12.2010 11. In the aforesaid background, if the impugned complaint is seen, it is revealed that the respondent No. 2 complainant himself has admitted in the impugned complaint that the alleged incident has taken place on 21.09.2010 However, for the first time, the respondent No. 2 complainant has given a written complaint on 12.01.2011 against the applicants before Salabatpura Police Station. The concerned police officer of Salabatpura Police Station has recorded the statement of the complainant on 15.04.2011 pursuant to his written complaint dated 09.03.2011 Thus, it is clear that for the first time written complaint was given in March 2011 by the respondent No. 2 - complainant. Even thereafter the impugned complaint is filed in August 2011. Thus, from the record, it is clear that there is a gross delay in filing the impugned complaint and from the record it is further revealed that the impugned compliant is nothing but a counter blast to the written complaints filed by the applicant No. 2 under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act as well as the FIR being C.R. No.I-244 of 2010 filed before Salabatpura Police Station. It is required to be noted that the respondent No. 2 has not given any reply to the statutory notice given by the applicant No. 2 when the cheques were dishonored. 12. It is required to be noted that the respondent No. 2 has not given any reply to the statutory notice given by the applicant No. 2 when the cheques were dishonored. 12. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the present case, this Court is of the view that the impugned compliant is a gross abuse of process of the Court and therefore in the interest of justice, powers under section 482 of the Code are required to be exercised. Accordingly, the application is allowed and Criminal Case No. 16080 of 2012 pending before the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Surat, is hereby quashed and set aside. Rule is made absolute.