JUDGMENT B.A.Patil, J. - This petition has been filed by petitioners-accused Nos.1 and 2 under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. praying this Court to quash the order dated 1.6.2018 passed in C.C.No.17107/2018 by XXII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Bengaluru. 2. I have heard the learned counsel Sri.Kumbar Vasant Fakeerappa for the petitioners and the learned counsel Sri.A.Ganesh for the respondent virtually. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the respondent has filed a private complaint under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act (hereinafter called as the 'N.I. Act) alleging that the complainant is one of the customers of second petitioner on the occasion of purchasing a site which was formed and to sell and proposed by the second petitioner, the complainant paid advance amount of Rs.2,28,000/- to purchase a site and in that connection an agreement of sale has also been entered between the complainant and accused Nos.1 and 2. Despite execution of agreement of sale and lapse of the agreed period, accused Nos.1 and 2 have not executed the sale deed. The cheque issued by accused Nos.1 and 2 for refund of advance amount came to be dishonoured on account of insufficiency of funds in the account. A legal notice was caused to be issued to accused Nos.1 to 3 and though the legal notice has been served upon them, they have not complied and not paid the amount under the said cheque and as such the complaint has been filed. 4. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners-accused that the order dated 1.6.2018 passed by the trial Judge is illegal, arbitrary, unjustified, perverse and it is against the principles of natural justice. It is his further submission that the mandatory provisions of Sections 202 & 204 of Cr.P.C. have not been followed. It is his further submission that the learned Magistrate while passing the order has not recorded the sworn statement as contemplated under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. and the said illegality is not going to rectify by virtue of the subsequent order dated 25.6.2018. It is his further submission that the orders passed by the trial Court is nothing but abuse of process of law. On these grounds he prayed to allow the petition and to quash the proceedings. 5. It is his further submission that the orders passed by the trial Court is nothing but abuse of process of law. On these grounds he prayed to allow the petition and to quash the proceedings. 5. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent vehemently argued and submitted that the cognizance taken on 1.6.2018 is in pursuance of Section 190 of Cr.P.C. and subsequently on 25.6.2018 the learned Magistrate has fully applied his mind by seeing the contents of the complaint, oral and documentary evidence and thereafter the cognizance has been taken and the summons has been issued. There is no illegality or irregularity in passing such order. It is his further submission that petitioners-accused only with an intention to protract the proceedings, has filed the present petition. On these grounds he prayed to dismiss the petition. 6. I have carefully and cautiously gone through the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the records. 7. It is not in dispute that the learned trial Judge on 1.6.2018 passed the order by mentioning that the complainant and the learned counsels are present. Perused the records and cognizance taken and thereafter the office is directed to register the case and put up for sworn statement and subsequently on 25.6.2018 the order of taking the cognizance has been passed. The said order reads as under: "That, I have perused of the contents of the complaint and oral and documentary evidence I have adduced by the complainant. That, on perusal of the same it prima facie appears that the accused has committed the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. In view of the same, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER That, the office is to register the case against accused in register Number III for the offence punishable under Section 138 of NI Act and issue process to him by RPAD with acknowledgement and also by hand summons and also send him the copy of the sworn statement along with documents, if PF is paid, returnable by 01/08/2018" 8. On perusal of the order dated 1.6.2018 it also indicates that the learned Magistrate has applied his mind to the complaint to verify whether the complaint constitute a cognizable offence or not. In that light, he has ordered for registration of the case. On perusal of the order dated 1.6.2018 it also indicates that the learned Magistrate has applied his mind to the complaint to verify whether the complaint constitute a cognizable offence or not. In that light, he has ordered for registration of the case. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the respondent, it is only for the purpose of taking the cognizance for registration of the case after satisfying himself and subsequently on 25.6.2018 the clear order has been passed that the complaint or contents of the complaint and oral and documentary evidence have been perused and it prima facie appears that the accused has committed the offence and then thereafter the summons has been issued to the accused. In that light, I am of the considered opinion that it is as per the provisions of law. For the purpose of brevity, I quote the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Bhushan Kumar and another Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and another, (2012) AIR SC 1747 , at paragraph Nos.8 and 10 it has been observed as under: 8. Under Section 190 of the Code, it is the application of judicial mind to the averments in the complaint that constitutes cognizance. At this stage, the Magistrate has to be satisfied whether there is sufficient ground for proceeding and not whether there is sufficient ground for conviction. Whether the evidence is adequate for supporting the conviction can be determined only at the trial and not at the stage of enquiry. If there is sufficient ground for proceeding then the Magistrate is empowered for issuance of process under Section 204 of the Code. 9. xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx. 10. Section 204 of the Code does not mandate the Magistrate to explicitly state the reasons for issuance of summons. It clearly states that if in the opinion of a Magistrate taking cognizance of an offence, there is sufficient ground for proceeding, then the summons may be issued. This section mandates the Magistrate to form an opinion as to whether there exists a sufficient ground for summons to be issued but it is nowhere mentioned in the section that the explicit narration of the same is mandatory, meaning thereby that it is not a prerequisite for deciding the validity of the summons issued." 9. This section mandates the Magistrate to form an opinion as to whether there exists a sufficient ground for summons to be issued but it is nowhere mentioned in the section that the explicit narration of the same is mandatory, meaning thereby that it is not a prerequisite for deciding the validity of the summons issued." 9. Keeping in view the proposition of law as laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court and on perusal of the records the learned Magistrate after application of mind has taken the cognizance in accordance with law. There is no illegality in the said procedure adopted and the petitionersaccused have not made out any case so as to quash the proceedings. In that light, the petition is liable to be dismissed and accordingly it is dismissed . IA No.1/2019 does not survive for consideration and the same is accordingly disposed of.