JUDGMENT Mr. Deepak Maheshwari, J. - Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as also for the respondent. 2. Though the matter has been listed to be referred to the Lok Adalat but counsel for petitioner submits that it is not a fit case for being referred to Lok Adalat. The matter is being been heard and decided on merits on the prayer jointly made by both sides. 3. This misc. petition has been moved with the prayer to quash and set aside the orders dated 26.01.2016 and 07.06.2017 whereby the trail Court took cognizance for the offence under Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 against the petitioner and the revision preferred against the said order was rejected by revisional Court. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the complainant has not come with clean hands and earlier to filing this complaint, FIR No. 13/2016 was also filed at P.S. Lal Kothi for the offence under Sections 420, 406, 467, 468 and 120-B IPC against the petitioner. After investigation Final Report was submitted by the concerned police station. The protest petition preferred against the said FR (negative report) was rejected by the competent Court and FR came to be accepted vide order dated 17.11.2017. Counsel for the petitioner admits that the cheque was issued by the petitioner for a sum of Rs. 24 Lacs in favour of the respondent, but he submits that substantial part of the amount due towards complainant was earlier paid by the petitioner to him. Counsel for the petitioner has placed his emphasis on the point that the whole amount of cheque was not due to be paid and was not an enforceable debt. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the amount which was earlier paid by him to the complainant was also included in the cheque amount i.e. Rs. 24 Lacs and thus exceeding the amount which was due to be paid to the complainant respondent. 5. Per contra, learned counsel for the complainant-respondent submits that the complainant advanced the loan amount to the partnership firm run by the petitioner along with some other persons. In order to repay the amount, a post dated cheque No. 188645 was issued for a sum of Rs. 24 Lacs in favour of the complainant which came to be dishonoured. 5. Per contra, learned counsel for the complainant-respondent submits that the complainant advanced the loan amount to the partnership firm run by the petitioner along with some other persons. In order to repay the amount, a post dated cheque No. 188645 was issued for a sum of Rs. 24 Lacs in favour of the complainant which came to be dishonoured. Counsel for the complainant-respondent further submits that as per section 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the presumption is to be drawn in regard to the consideration for which the instrument is issued. He further contends that it is an admitted fact that the cheque was drawn by him in favour of complainant which came to be dishonoured. Counsel for the respondent submits that FIR No. 13/2016 was registered for the offence under Sections 420, 406, 467, 468 and 120-B IPC whereas, the complaint filed for the offence under section 138 of N.I. Act is altogether a different issue. If the FR (negative report) was submitted in the said FIR No. 13/2016, it does not have any bearing on the complaint filed for the offence under section 138 of N.I. Act. 6. In support of his arguments, counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgment M/s Bellary Steels and Alloys Ltd. and Anr. v. M/s Vandana Ispat Private Ltd. and Anr. rendered by chattisgarh High Court. On going through the said judgment, it appears that in that matter, when the cheque in question was returned with the endorsement "please present again" a Demand Draft of Rs. 14 Lacs was dispatched by the accused to the complainant with the request to return the original cheque. But despite receiving the amount through bank draft, the cheque was again presented for encashment which was dishonoured. In such facts and circumstances, the Court came to the rescue of the accused-petitioner under Section 482 Cr.P.C., 1973 However, in the present case in hand, there is no such case that after dishonourment of the cheque, any amount came to be paid by the accused-petitioner to the complainant. 7. Counsel for the respondent has relied upon judgment of Coordinate Bench of this Court rendered in Shiv Charan Khandelwal v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. 7. Counsel for the respondent has relied upon judgment of Coordinate Bench of this Court rendered in Shiv Charan Khandelwal v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. where in, coordinate Bench of this Court while adverting to the presumption to be drawn under sections 118 and 138 of the N.I. Act has come to the conclusion that at the stage of framing of charge, the presumption needs to be drawn when the cheque has been admittedly issued. The defence case can be set up by the accused at appropriate stage during trail. 8. In view of the discussion made above, this Court is of the view that on the basis of the presumption which is to be drawn under section 118 and 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the cognizance taken by the trial Court against the accused-petitioner and the revision against the said order which came to be dismissed does not warrant in any interferance by this Court. Whatever defence is available to the accused-petitioner can be raised at the appropriate stage during trial. So far as the order taking cognizance is concerned and the order dated 17.06.2017 passed by revisional Court is concerned, this Court is of the view that no interference is required to be made under Section 482 Cr.P.C., 1973 9. The misc. petition stands dismissed accordingly.