JUDGMENT : Heard learned counsel Mr. M.H. Rajbarbhuyan for the petitioner and learned counsel Mr. N.H. Barbhuyan for the respondent. With the consent of the learned counsel for both the sides, the matter is taken up for final hearing and disposal at the stage of admission. 2. By this application under Section 482 CrPC, the petitioner sought for quashing the proceeding in Complaint Case No. 23(A)/2016 pending in the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Hailakandi. 3. The respondent herein lodged a complaint against the present petitioner under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act. On the basis of the said complaint, learned Judicial Magistrate took cognizance and issued process. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the petitioner married the sister of the respondent/complainant. However, their marital boat moved into rough weather and ultimately severed by talak. There was an amicable settlement between the parties after divorce and pursuant to such settlement, the petitioner paid Rs. 3,00,000/- towards payments of the moharana and also one time maintenance. However, on the next day, the respondent obtained the cheque in question from the petitioner forcibly under coercion. The precise contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner never issued the cheque in question, which was forcefully obtained from him and there was no enforceable debt and as such the complaint did not make out any offence under Section 138 N.I. Act. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent submits, that the statutory presumption in favour of the complainant, that the cheque was issued in discharge of enforceable debt, can be rebutted only by evidence and the question raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner may be gone into only by the trial court in course of trial and not by this court. 6. The copy of the complaint has been annexed to the petition as Annexure-8. As per the allegation made in the complaint, the petitioner obtained a loan of Rs. 2,80,000/- from the respondent and to liquidate the said loan, the petitioner issued cheque No. 773806 on 04.02.2016 for an amount of Rs. 2,80,000/-. The respondent/complainant presented the cheque with the bank for encashment, which was returned unpaid by the bank on 09.02.2016 with the endorsement, that payment was stopped by the drawer. 2,80,000/- from the respondent and to liquidate the said loan, the petitioner issued cheque No. 773806 on 04.02.2016 for an amount of Rs. 2,80,000/-. The respondent/complainant presented the cheque with the bank for encashment, which was returned unpaid by the bank on 09.02.2016 with the endorsement, that payment was stopped by the drawer. Upon receiving such return memo, the respondent issued a notice on 24.02.2016, which was returned unserve with the endorsement that addressee refused to receive the same. Thereafter, the respondent lodged the complaint, whereupon the learned trial court took cognizance. 7. The settled position as held by the Apex Court in a long line of decision, that when a complaint or an FIR is sought to be quashed at the initial stage, the test to be applied is whether the allegation made in the complaint or FIR, prima facie makes out any offence. If the allegation made in the complaint or FIR makes out an offence, there is no question of quashing the proceeding. As per the allegations, made in the complaint, apparently, the cheque was issued in discharge of a debt, the cheque was presented to the bank for encashment, which was returned unpaid. Notice was issued, which was also returned with the endorsement that the addressee refused to accept and thereafter the complaint was lodged. Having regard to the above allegations, it is difficult to say, that the complaint did not make out an offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner placing reliance on the decisions of the Apex Court in Rishipal Singh Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. reported in (2014) 7 SCC 215 ; Ramdas s/o Khelu Naik Vs. Krishnanand s/o Vishnu Naik reported in (2014) 12 SCC 625 and D.P. Gulati, Manager Accounts, Jetking Infotrain Limited Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. reported in (2015) 11 SCC 730 submits that if the materials on record are of such nature, which can negate the allegation made in the complaint, criminal proceeding deserves to be quashed to prevent the abuse of process of the court. Mr. Rajbarbhuiya further contends that the factum of the cheque being obtained forcibly and absence of any enforceable debt were apparent from the Annexure-7, the notice issued by the petitioner through his counsel. Mr. Rajbarbhuiya further contends that the factum of the cheque being obtained forcibly and absence of any enforceable debt were apparent from the Annexure-7, the notice issued by the petitioner through his counsel. It is no doubt true, that a notice was issued by the learned counsel for the petitioner alleging that the cheque was obtained by force, and that the payment whatever was due to the wife of the petitioner as a consequence of divorce was already paid and the petitioner did not owe any money to the respondent or his sister. Even if it is assumed for the sake of argument, that the cheque was obtained by force, which is a disputed matter and the same can be gone into by trial court only. Unless the matter is tried and evidence is adduced, the facts alleged by the petitioner cannot be held to be gospel truth at this stage. It is also settled position of law, that while deciding a quashing proceeding under Section 482 CrPC, the High Court should go by the allegation made in the complaint or FIR in its face value and cannot enter into an enquiry, as to the merit of the case or as to the veracity of the allegation made in the complaint. It is no doubt true, that if the materials on record relied by the petitioner are undisputed and of such starling quality, that the prosecution cannot stand before such documents or materials, in such case, prosecution can be quashed for ends of justice. But the documents and materials sought to be relied by the petitioner to negate the accusation, can, by no stretch of imagination be considered as undisputed and of starling quality, before which prosecution cannot stand. Be that as it may, the objection raised by the petitioner needs to be gone into by the trial Court and this Court in exercise of inherent power, cannot usurp the power of trial Court for holding a parallel trial. 9. Therefore, having regard to the scope of interference with the criminal proceeding at the threshold and the allegation made in the complaint, as indicated above, in my considered view, this is not a fit case for quashing the proceeding at the threshold. Accordingly, the criminal petition is found devoid of merit and dismissed.