ORDER : The petitioner has filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (henceforth for brevity referred to as ‘Cr.P.C’) seeking quashing of the order passed by the Court of JMFC-II, Hubballi (henceforth for brevity referred to as ‘Court below’) in C.C.No.421/2014 dated 18.08.2015. 2. The summary of the case of the petitioner, which has lead him to approach this Court is that, the petitioner, as a complainant, had filed a private complaint against the present respondent and one Sri. D.A. Mendigeri arraying them as accused No.1 and 2, respectively for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (henceforth for brevity referred to as ‘N.I.Act’). The complaint was filed under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. It appears that the Court below took cognizance of the offence under Section 138 of the N.I.Act and proceeded further in the matter including ordering for registration of a Criminal Case under Register No.III and for issuance of summons to the accused vide its order dated 20.06.2014. The accused No.2 therein Sri. D.A. Mendigeri challenged the said order of taking cognizance against him before this Court by filing a Criminal Petition No.100224/2015 under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., seeking to quash the order dated 20.06.2014 passed by the Court below in C.C.No.421/2014. This Court by its order dated 13.07.2015 allowed the petition and quashed the proceeding so far as the petitioner before it in Criminal Petition No.100224/2015 is concerned. As such, the petition in C.C.No.421/2014 on the file of the Court below was quashed as against Sri. D.A. Mendigeri, accused No.2, who was the petitioner in Criminal Petition No.100224/2015. The certified copy of the order passed by this Court in Criminal Petition No.100224/2015 was produced by the accused in the Court below on 18.08.2015. The Court below took that order as quashing of the entire proceeding in C.C.No.421/2014 and pronounced the order of dismissal of C.C.No.421/2014 by referring to the order passed by this Court in Criminal Petition No.100224/2015. The present petitioner has challenged the said order passed by the Court below, which has quashed the entire proceeding and has prayed for quashing the said order of the Court below and remanding the matter to the Court below for fresh trial. 3. The present petitioner has challenged the said order passed by the Court below, which has quashed the entire proceeding and has prayed for quashing the said order of the Court below and remanding the matter to the Court below for fresh trial. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner, in his argument, reiterated the contention taken up by him in the petition and contended that when the quashing of the order was with respect to the accused No.2 in the Court below, the Court below was not justified in dismissing the entire case including the case against accused No.1 therein. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent in his argument submitted that since the Court below has quashed the entire proceeding, the present petitioner cannot institute the present petition and the same is hit by the principle of Res-judicata. 5. In the light of the circumstances of the case, which has been summarized above, the argument of the learned counsel for the respondent that the order passed by the Court below cannot be challenged before this Court under the present petition, since the same is hit by the principle of Res-judicata is not acceptable. The principle laid down under section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure (henceforth for brevity referred to as ‘CPC’), res-judicata under no stretch of imagination can be applied in the instant case where the petitioner has sought for quashing the order dated 18.08.2015 passed by the Court below in C.C.No.421/2014, since it is not a proceeding on same cause of action for the same relief here. On the contrary it is in the form of verifying the correctness of the order passed by the Court below, the principle of Res-judicata is not the principle that is applicable. 6. The facts gathered above clearly go to show that when this Court in Criminal Petition No.100224/2015 has quashed the proceeding insofar as the petitioner before it was concerned, the said petitioner in Criminal Petition No.100224/2015 was accused No.2 in C.C.No.421/2014 in the Court below. As such, the quashing of the proceeding would be only as against accused No.2 in the Court below. With respect to accused No.1, the proceeding was required to be proceeded further in accordance with law. However, the Court below misreading the order of this Court passed in Criminal Petition No.100224/2015 has dismissed the entire case in C.C.No.421/2014. As such, the quashing of the proceeding would be only as against accused No.2 in the Court below. With respect to accused No.1, the proceeding was required to be proceeded further in accordance with law. However, the Court below misreading the order of this Court passed in Criminal Petition No.100224/2015 has dismissed the entire case in C.C.No.421/2014. As such, the said order dated 18.08.2015 quashing the entire proceeding, even as against the accused No.1 before it, is required to be quashed. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following; ORDER The petition is allowed. The order dated 18.08.2015 passed by the Civil Judge and JMFC-II, Hubballi in C.C.No.421/2014 dismissing the entire C.C.No.421/2014 is confined only to the accused No.2 before it namely Sri. D.A. Mendigeri. C.C.No.421/2014 as against the present respondent No.1, who is accused No.1 before it, is restored on the file. The Court below to proceed in C.C.No.421/2014 against accused No.1 in accordance with law and dispose of the matter as expeditiously as possible.