ORDER : Petitioner has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 397 of Cr.P.C. against the concurrent judgments rendered by the Courts below holding her guilty of the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. 2. Case of the respondent/complainant is that the petitioner/accused borrowed Rs.14,00,000/-from the complainant by way of cheques bearing Nos.279529, 279530, 279532 and 279533 and a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-in cash totally amounting to Rs.15,00,000/-and towards repayment of the said amount issued five cheques which came to be dishonoured for insufficient funds. 3. The contention of the petitioner is that there was no transaction whatsoever between her and the respondent/complainant; Cheques in question were given by her to the brother of the complainant by name Gnanesh Balashekar, which have been misused by the complainant to lay false claim against the petitioner. 4. It is recorded in the impugned order that, the petitioner/accused has unequivocally admitted having received Rs.14,00,000/-by way of four cheques referred above and has stated that she does not know whether cash of Rs.1,00,000/-was received by her husband. Even with regard to the receipt of cash payment, she has not denied the receipt of the said amount. The very fact that five post dated cheques for total amount of Rs.15,00,000/-are issued by the petitioner goes to show that they were issued by the petitioner/accused towards legally enforceable debt due by her. No contra evidence is available on record to take a different view. 5. The contention urged by the petitioner that she had some transaction with the brother of the complainant by name Gnanesh Balashekar has not been probablized to any extent. She has not examined the aforesaid Gnanesh Balashekar nor has she produced any material to show the alleged transaction between her and Gnanesh Balashekar. On the other hand, the very admission made by Dw1 as above, indicates that there was subsisting debt as on the time of issuance of the cheques. Courts below, therefore were justified in holding the petitioner/accused guilty of the above offence. 6. That apart, I do not find any legal or jurisdictional error in the findings recorded by the Courts below. The scope and jurisdiction of this Court under Section 397 of Cr.P.C. is limited. As held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of AMIT KAPOOR Vs. RAMESH CHANDER AND ANOTHER reported in (2012) 9 SCC 460 . “20. The scope and jurisdiction of this Court under Section 397 of Cr.P.C. is limited. As held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of AMIT KAPOOR Vs. RAMESH CHANDER AND ANOTHER reported in (2012) 9 SCC 460 . “20. The jurisdiction of the court under Section 397 can be exercised so as to examine the correctness, legality or propriety of an order passed by the trial court or the inferior court, as the case may be. Though the section does not specifically use the expression “prevent abuse of process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice”, the jurisdiction under Section 397 is a very limited one. The legality, propriety or correctness of an order passed by a court is the very foundation of exercise of jurisdiction under Section 397 but ultimately it also requires justice to be done. The jurisdiction could be exercised where there is palpable error, noncompliance with the provisions of law, the decision is completely erroneous or where the judicial discretion is exercised arbitrarily. On the other hand, Section 482 is based upon the maxim quando lex aliquid alicui concedit, concedere videtur id sine quo res ipsa esse non potest i.e. when the law gives anything to anyone, it also gives all those things without which the thing itself would be unavoidable. The section confers very wide power on the Court to do justice and to ensure that the process of the court is not permitted to be abused.” No such legal or jurisdictional error have been pointed out by the petitioner warranting interference in the impugned judgments. Accordingly, there being no grounds to admit the petitions, petitions are dismissed at the admission stage.