JUDGMENT Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J. – Heard Mr. Deepak Kumar Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Ashok Kumar Singh, learned APP appearing for the State. 2. In this application the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the entire criminal proceeding including the order dated 29.01.2015 passed in connection with Complaint Case No. 1969 of 2013 by learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Hazaribagh, whereby and where under, cognizance has been taken for the offence punishable under section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act. 3. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the entire instalment with respect to purchase of a truck had been deposited by him. The petitioner had deposited several cheques with the complainant, which however was misused by him, leading to institution of a complaint case under section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act. It has been further submitted that the complainant himself is not aware about the amount contained in the cheque as there appears discrepancies in the complaint petition itself with respect to the amount. It has also been submitted that in the year 2015, the petitioner has also filed a complaint case against the opposite party No. 2 in which details have been stated. It has further been submitted that it is a malicious prosecution against the petitioner and therefore the entire criminal proceeding deserves to be quashed and set aside. 4. Learned APP appearing for the State has opposed the prayer made by the petitioner. 5. The allegation made in the complaint is of issuance of a cheque by the petitioner and dishonour of the said cheque led to issuance of a legal notice and since the amount was not paid, the complaint was lodged. 6. Submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be considered in a proceeding under section 482 Cr.P.C., 1973 as the same are by way of defence, which can at best may be decided in course of trial. Moreover, the complaint lodged by the petitioner is an afterthought, as the same was lodged in the year 2015 after the complaint lodged by the opposite party No. 2 in the year 2013. 7. In view of above, there being a prima facie case is in existence against the petitioner, I am not inclined to interfere with the criminal proceeding against the petitioner. 7. In view of above, there being a prima facie case is in existence against the petitioner, I am not inclined to interfere with the criminal proceeding against the petitioner. This application is accordingly dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to raise all his points at the appreciate stage.