JUDGMENT : B.N. Karia, J. As common question of law and facts arise, these two petitions are heard and disposed of by this common judgment, with the consent of learned advocates for the respective parties. 2. These two Special Criminal Applications are filed under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ["CrPC" for brevity] for quashment. (a) Criminal Case No. 822 of 2010 filed in the Court of learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Court No. 6, Ahmedabad; and (b) Criminal Case No. 694 of 2010 filed in the Court of learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Court No. 6, Ahmedabad under the provisions of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (In short "the Act"). 3. Brief facts of these Applications are that the petitioner in both the petitions is proprietor of Neha Industries. The complainant and petitioner are school friends. That, during the period of April/May 2009, the petitioner sought an amount of Rs. 3,50,000/- from the complainant for his business purpose and in connection with a request of the petitioner, the complainant gave Rs. 3,50,000/- to the petitioner. At that time, the petitioner gave assurance to the complainant that he will return back such amount within three months. After the said period was over, the complainant demanded his money back, and therefore, petitioner issued cheque no. 549105 dated 15.12.2009 drawn on Cosmos Co.Op. Bank Limited, Rakhiyal Branch, Ahmedabad for Rs. 15,000/- and cheque No. 549106 dated 20.01.2010 drawn on Cosmos Co.Op. Bank Limited, Rakhiyal Branch, Ahmedabad for Rs. 3,35,000/-. That thereafter, the petitioner presented the said cheque No. 549105 for Rs. 15,000/- on 15.12.2009, which was dishonoured on 18.12.2009. and cheque No. 549106 for Rs. 3,35,000/- on 20.01.2010 which was also dishonoured on 21.01.2010. Therefore, the complainant issued statutory notice under the provisions of Act, nevertheless petitioner did not pay due amount, and therefore, the impugned complaints have been filed by the complainant. 4. Heard learned advocate Ms. Neha Shah for Mr. Masoom K. Shah and Mr. Vishwas K. Shah, learned advocates appearing on behalf of the petitioners, learned advocate Mr. Shailesh V. Borisa appearing on behalf of the respondent no.1 and learned Additional Public Prosecutor Ms. Maithili Mehta appearing on behalf of the respondent no.2-State. 5. Ms. Nehta Shah for the petitioner submitted that the impugned complaint is a result of representation/complaint made by the petitioner to the Joint Commissioner of Police, Ahmadabad City on 16.12.2009. Shailesh V. Borisa appearing on behalf of the respondent no.1 and learned Additional Public Prosecutor Ms. Maithili Mehta appearing on behalf of the respondent no.2-State. 5. Ms. Nehta Shah for the petitioner submitted that the impugned complaint is a result of representation/complaint made by the petitioner to the Joint Commissioner of Police, Ahmadabad City on 16.12.2009. In the said complaint, the petitioner clearly informed that on 29.08.2009, the petitioner was called upon by the accused nos. 1 and 2 shown in the complaint. That. the complainant was in a drunken state at Hotel Miracle. That, when the petitioner visited hotel, both accused-owners of the Hotel Miracle pressurized the petitioner to pay Rs. 5 lacs for business transaction of the petitioner and complainant. As it was refused by the petitioner, because of payment for business and account was completed, the petitioner was harassed, heavily beaten by giving kick and fist blow and revolver was put on his head and thereby frightened him. That, by applying force, his signature was taken by the complainant on three blank cheques. That, he was threatened that accused nos.3 and 4 are sons of high ranked police officers and they are very influential people along with Police who shall not register or look into his complaint. That, the petitioner tried to approach Kagadapith Police Station to register his complaint, but he was denied. Thereafter, he went to Vejalpur Police Station to get register his complaint and there also, he was denied by the Police, and hence, he approached Joint Commissioner of Police. That, cheques were signed by the petitioner under pressure exerted on him and all the three cheques were of the bank account which was closed, due to transfer of Bank branch. That, the impugned complaint is counter-blast to the letter written by the petitioner to the Joint Commissioner of Police disclosing cognizable offence. That, only with a view to harass the petitioner, false complaint was lodged by the respondent no.1. That, on the very face of it, entire complaint and allegations made therein are so absurd that it is not possible to reach at a conclusion of guilt of the petitioner. That, the proceedings initiated against the petitioner by the respondent no.1 are with a malafide and malicious intention, and it is sheer abuse of process of Court. That, on the very face of it, entire complaint and allegations made therein are so absurd that it is not possible to reach at a conclusion of guilt of the petitioner. That, the proceedings initiated against the petitioner by the respondent no.1 are with a malafide and malicious intention, and it is sheer abuse of process of Court. That, signature of the petitioner on a blank cheque was taken by force has not been denied by the respondent, in his reply. That, handwriting in the body of the cheque is different than the signature made. Hence, it was requested by learned advocate for the petitioner to quash and set aside the Criminal Case No. 822 of 2010 and 694 of 2010 filed in the Court of learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Court No. 6, Ahmedabad with consequential proceedings by allowing these petitions. In support of her arguments, she placed reliance on the following citations: (1) Harshendra Kumar D. v. Rebatilata Koley & Ors., reported in (2011) 3 SCC 351 (2) D. P. Gulati, Manager Accounts, Jetking Infotrain Limited v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr., reported in (2015) 11 SCC 730 . 6. Per contra, Mr. Shailesh V. Borisa, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent no.1 strongly opposed the submissions made by the learned advocate for the petitioner submitting that the petitioner himself has settled all account of business on 09.07.2009 in black and white and he has voluntarily admitted to repay the outstanding dues to the respondent no.1-complainant from September 2009, every month regularly by an installment of Rs. 15,000/-. That, such contradictory statement was made by the petitioner in the petition as well as in letter dated 16.12.2009 addressed to the Joint Commissioner of Police. That, the case of respondent no.1 is absolutely based on documentary evidence, which cannot be decided in exercise of powers under section 482 CrPC, 1973. That, dispute between the petitioner and the respondent no.1-complainant can only be decided by the trial Court by recording evidence, and therefore, the present petition requires to be dismissed only on this ground. That, false and concocted story has been created by the petitioner, after more than 3 months and 17 days, by writing a letter to the Joint Commissioner of Police, without any reasonable explanation of delay. That, the story created by the petitioner cannot be believed by any prudent man. That, false and concocted story has been created by the petitioner, after more than 3 months and 17 days, by writing a letter to the Joint Commissioner of Police, without any reasonable explanation of delay. That, the story created by the petitioner cannot be believed by any prudent man. If, the complaint was not registered by the Police, as stated by the petitioner, he could have approached the learned Magistrate, but he was silent with a knowledge that no such incident had taken place, as alleged in his letter dated 29.12.2009. That, when the petitioner came to know about the respondent no.1 has presented cheques in the Bank and it was likely to be dishonoured, he was advised and thereafter, he made a false representation by writing a letter to the Joint Commissioner of Police. That, the petitioner issued three cheques voluntarily towards his legal debts to the complainant and it is reflected in writing under his signature by an installment to be paid by him to the respondent no.1 every month. That, factual aspect cannot be decided by this court in a writ petition, because it is purely a function of the trial Court. That, the case of the respondent no.1 is clearly based on documentary evidence. As complaint lodged by the respondent no.1 under section 138 of the Act was fixed for cross examination from the petitioner side, as the affidavit was filed by the respondent no.1- complainant before the Court, he has filed this petition thereby abusing process of law. That, an opportunity to prove the case should be given to the respondent no.1-complainant before the trial Court, and ultimately, it was urged by him to dismiss the petition. In support of his arguments, he has placed reliance in case of Sampelly Satyanarayana Rao v. Indian Renewable Energy Development Agency Ltd, reported in AIR 2016 SC 4363 . 7. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor Ms. Maithili Mehta for the respondent no.2- State has supported the arguments advanced by learned advocate for the respondent no.1 and submitted that as per the order passed by this Court on 6th March 2012, prosecution has produced a report of Investigating Agency. She has further submitted that prima facie it was a business transaction between the petitioner and respondent no.1 herein. As per the report submitted by the Investigating Agency, Rs. She has further submitted that prima facie it was a business transaction between the petitioner and respondent no.1 herein. As per the report submitted by the Investigating Agency, Rs. 3,50,000/- was given by the respondent no.1 to the petitioner for business purposes with an undertaking that within a period of three months, the petitioner would repay the amount as parted to him. That, a writing was executed by the petitioner under his signature. That, two different cheques were issued amounting Rs. 15,000/- and Rs. 3,35,000/- in favour of the respondent no.1. That, out of them, cheque of Rs. 15,000/- was presented by the respondent no.1, but it was returned back dishonoured by the bank disclosing that 'account was closed by the petitioner'. That, demand was continued by the respondent no.1 with the petitioner, who approached the Joint Commissioner of Police at Ahmedabad City with a false story. It is further argued that the dispute between the petitioner and the respondent no.2 was in connection with demand of amount and partnership business. That, no independent witnesses were shown by the petitioner nor any evidence was produced by him, in support of his representation/letter dated 16.12.2009. She has further submitted that looking to the dispute between the parties, no powers under section 482 CrPC, 1973 may be exercised by this Court. Finally, it was requested by her to dismiss the petition. 8. Having considered the facts of the fact, averments made by learned advocates for the respective parties, it appears that on 16.12.2009, a letter was written by the petitioner addressed to Joint Commissioner of Police of Ahmedabad City disclosing an incident that on 29th August 2009, one Mr. Raju Baldev Bhavsar called him informing that complaint was in drunken state at Hotel Miracle and requested to carry him back home. Thereafter, owners of the Hotel, Mr. Nil J. Shrimali and Vaibhav J. Shrimali (accused no. 3 and 4 to the Police complaint) also called up the petitioner informing about drunken state of the complainant. Petitioner visited the hotel, at that time, all the above mentioned persons, along with waiters of Hotel pressurized him to pay Rs. 5 lacs for business transaction with the complainant. Nil J. Shrimali and Vaibhav J. Shrimali (accused no. 3 and 4 to the Police complaint) also called up the petitioner informing about drunken state of the complainant. Petitioner visited the hotel, at that time, all the above mentioned persons, along with waiters of Hotel pressurized him to pay Rs. 5 lacs for business transaction with the complainant. But, as the petitioner refused, by saying that all such accounting and calculation and payment towards business were completed, he was harassed, heavily beaten and by placing revolver on his head, he was threatened to sign on the letter head. It is the say of the petitioner that he tried to approach Kagadapith Police Station as well as Vejalpur Police Station to register a complaint against the accused, but as father of the accused nos. 3 and 4 were influential people in police, his complaint was not registered hence, he wrote a letter to Joint Commissioner of Police on 16.12.2009. 9. It appears from the letter written by the petitioner that father of the accused nos. 3 and 4 were serving in the Police department, and therefore, being threatened by them, no complaint was filed by him at the relevant point of time. This averments made by the petitioner in his letter dated 16.12.2009 to the Joint Commissioner of Police, Sector-2, Ahmedabad City falsifies story of the petitioner that his complaint was not registered by Kagadapith Police Station or Vejalpur Police Station. 10. It appears from the complaint that two different cheques were issued by the petitioner in favour of respondent no.1 amounting to Rs. 3,50,000/-. Out of which, cheque no. 549105 dated 15.12.2009 drawn on Cosmos Co.Op. Bank Limited, Rakhiyal Branch, Ahmedabad was for Rs. 15,000/- and cheque No. 549106 dated 20.01.2010 drawn on same bank and on same branch was for Rs. 3,35,000/- were issued in favour of the complainant. Both the cheques were presented by the complainant and both of the cheques were dishonoured by the bank authorities on 18.12.2009 and 21.01.2010 respectively with an endorsement that account was closed. It appears from the record that before filing a complaint under Section 138 of the Act, legal notice was also issued by the complainant through his advocate by registered Post A.D./UPC on 15th January 2010 and 13th February 2010 respectively, which were duly received by the petitioner, but no reply was given by the petitioner to the said notices. It appears from the record that before filing a complaint under Section 138 of the Act, legal notice was also issued by the complainant through his advocate by registered Post A.D./UPC on 15th January 2010 and 13th February 2010 respectively, which were duly received by the petitioner, but no reply was given by the petitioner to the said notices. When the amount; as claimed by the respondent no.1- complainant was not paid, the respondent no.1 filed impugned complaints before learned Metropolitan Magistrate under Section 138 of the Act. After recording the plea, the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Court No. 6, Ahmedabad was pleased to issue process against the present petitioner. It also appears from the record produced by the respondent no.1 that affidavit in examination-inchief was also submitted by the complainant before the trial court on 11.05.2010. Indisputedly, the matter was fixed for cross-examination of the respondent no.1 from the petitioner side, but instead of making cross-examination in proceeding further before the trial Court, petitioner has approached this Court by filing these different petitions praying for quashing and setting aside the impugned complaints filed under section 138 of the NI Act. The petitioner has disclosed the facts by submitting on a plain paper under his signature fixing installments of Rs. 15,000/- payable to the complainant regularly. The arguments advanced by the learned advocate for the petitioner that on three blank cheques, signature of the petitioner was received by the respondent no.1 by applying force cannot be considered by this Court in a petition preferred under section 482 CrPC, 1973 as it is a disputed question of fact. 11. In a case of Sampelly Satyanarayana Rao v. Indian Renewable Energy Development Agency Ltd, reported in AIR 2016 SC 4363 , it is held that the court while dealing with a quashing petition, has ordinarily to proceed on the basis of averments in the complaint. Disputed question of fact cannot be adjudicated upon and complaint cannot be quashed. Leaned advocate for the petitioner has placed reliance upon a decision in the case of Harshendra Kumar D. v. Rebatilata Koley & Ors., reported in (2011) 3 SCC 351 , wherein it is observed that consideration of defence at prima facie stage by High Court under revisionary power or under inherent power is not absolutely barred. Leaned advocate for the petitioner has placed reliance upon a decision in the case of Harshendra Kumar D. v. Rebatilata Koley & Ors., reported in (2011) 3 SCC 351 , wherein it is observed that consideration of defence at prima facie stage by High Court under revisionary power or under inherent power is not absolutely barred. It cannot be a dispute in respect of exercising of powers under section 482 CrPC, 1973 in a proper case. 12. In case of D. P. Gulati, Manager Accounts, Jetking Infotrain Limited v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr., reported in (2015) 11 SCC 730 , wherein the complaint was counter blast to a complaint under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act 1881. Frivolous complaint under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 406 IPC was filed against the appellant and other Directors of appellant's Company considering the fact that it was a clear case of abuse of process of law on the part of respondent no.2, it was maintainable. 13. Here, from the facts, as it emerges, the complaint filed by the respondent no.1 under the NI Act can never be treated as notice, nay the letter written to Joint Commissioner of Police dated 16.12.2009. Hence, this judgment will not be helpful to the petitioner. 14. But here, signature of the petitioner was allegedly taken by the respondent no.1 forcefully or pressurizing him. As a question of fact is required to be determined after recording evidence of the parties, this court expresses no view on the disputed question of fact in a proceedings under section 482 CrPC, 1973. It is an undisputed fact that both the cheques were issued under the signature of petitioner, in favour of the respondent no.1. These cheques were presented for clearance of the amount and were dishonoured by the banker with an endorsement "account closed by the drawer" and thus, a notice demanding money was issued by the complainant to the petitioner, but he failed to make payment of the amount mentioned in the cheques ie., total of Rs. 3,50,000/- nor deemed fit to reply the notice. 3,50,000/- nor deemed fit to reply the notice. This Court is of the view that the petitioner is an accused in the complaint, has challenged the proceedings of criminal complaints before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate by taking factual defence, whether the said cheques were issued by him under his signature was by force, or there was outstanding, which is lawful or not? is a question of fact, which could be determined by the Trial Court, after recording evidence of the parties. At this juncture, this Court restrain itself from expressing any view on the disputed question of fact in a writ application preferred under section 482 CrPC, 1973. 15. Resultantly, for the reasons recorded hereinabove, these writ applications deserve to be dismissed. Accordingly, both the matters are dismissed. Trial Court shall proceed with the trial as expeditiously as possible. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion as to the correctness of the defence pleas taken up by the petitioner. Rule discharged. Interim relief granted earlier stands vacated. No costs. FURTHR ORDER: 16. Learned advocate Ms. Neha Shah for Mr. Masoom K. Shah and Mr. Vishwas K. Shah, learned advocates appearing on behalf of the petitioner requested this Court to suspend execution of this order for a period of three months and extend interim relief granted earlier with a view to challenge the same before Higher Forum/Appellate Court. 17. Considering the fact that Criminal Cases No. 822 of 2010 and 694 of 2010 were filed in the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate, Ahmedabad by the respondent no.1 seven years before and these petitions have been filed in the year 2012, this Court has recorded detailed reasons for rejecting the prayer made. 18. Under the circumstances, prayer for suspension of this order and extension of interim relief granted earlier made by learned advocate for the petitioner stands rejected.