JUDGMENT : Ravindra Maithani, J. Challenge in this petition is made to the following:- (i) Order dated 26.08.2013, passed in Complaint Case No.149 of 2013, Vijendra Kumar Agrawal vs. Amrit Dwellers Private Limited, under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short, “the Act”), by the court of Special Judicial Magistrate 1st Dehradun (for short, “the case”). (ii) Judgement and Order dated 06.06.2019, passed in Criminal Revision No.186 of 2018, M/s Amrit Dwellers vs. State and another, by the court of Additional Sessions Judge 4th, Dehradun. By this judgment and order the order dated 26.08.2013, passed in the case has been confirmed. 2. Facts necessary to appreciate the controversy are as follows. The respondent no.2 Vijendra Kumar Agarwal filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Act through power of attorney holder Gaurav Agarwal against the petitioner. After inquiry having been completed, by the impugned order dated 26.08.2013, the petitioner has been summoned to answer the accusation under Section 138 of the Act. This order was unsuccessfully challenged in the revision. In fact, one of the grounds taken in the revision was that the affidavit filed in evidence under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, “the Code”) is not duly sworn affidavit of Gaurav Agarwal, the power of attorney holder because it has not been sworn by him. But, in the impugned judgment dated 06.06.2019, it is observed that it is a small mistake. Aggrieved by it, the petitioner is before this Court. 3. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the affidavit tendered in evidence, at the stage of Section 200 of the Code, is no affidavit in the eye of law because the affidavit has not been sworn by Gaurav Agarwal, who signed it. 5. In addition to above, the following points have also been raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner:- (i) According to the complainant, cheque was given to the firm of Vijendra Kumar Agarwal, whereas statutory notice was given by Vijendra Kumar Agarwal in his individual capacity. (ii) The statutory notice does not reveal as to how the petitioner is liable to pay the amount in question. (iii) The statutory notice does not make reference to any agreement, pursuant to which any act could have been executed by the petitioner. (ii) The statutory notice does not reveal as to how the petitioner is liable to pay the amount in question. (iii) The statutory notice does not make reference to any agreement, pursuant to which any act could have been executed by the petitioner. (iv) The power of attorney holder is a lawyer. The complaint does not reveal how the facts came into his knowledge. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the complainant would submit that all the issue which have raised pertains to the factual aspects of the matter which may be gone into during trial. Such issues cannot be adjudicated in the proceedings under Section 482 of the Code. With regard to the affidavit filed by Gaurav Agarwal under Section 200 of the Code, it is submitted that there was a mistake in the affidavit and it does not affect the acceptability of the affidavit because the affidavit has been, in fact, executed by Gaurav Agarwal. 7. This is petition under Section 482 of the Code. Generally interference is not warranted when prima facie case is disclosed. Factual aspects may not be examined. The jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code is quite wide, but much guided by the Hon’ble Supreme Court In the case of Indian Oil Coprn. Vs. NEPC India Ltd. and Others, (2006) 6 SCC 736 . the Hon’ble Supreme Court culled out the principles for invoking the jurisdiction under section 482 of the Code. In paragraph 12, the Hon’ble Court observed as hereunder; “12. The principles relating to exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash complaints and criminal proceedings have been stated and reiterated by this Court in several decisions. In paragraph 12, the Hon’ble Court observed as hereunder; “12. The principles relating to exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash complaints and criminal proceedings have been stated and reiterated by this Court in several decisions. To mention a few— Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia v. Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre [ (1988) 1 SCC 692 : 1988 SCC (Cri) 234] , State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal [1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 : 1992 SCC (Cri) 426] , Rupan Deol Bajaj v. Kanwar Pal Singh Gill [ (1995) 6 SCC 194 : 1995 SCC (Cri) 1059] , Central Bureau of Investigation v. Duncans Agro Industries Ltd. [ (1996) 5 SCC 591 : 1996 SCC (Cri) 1045] , State of Bihar v. Rajendra Agrawalla [ (1996) 8 SCC 164 : 1996 SCC (Cri) 628] , Rajesh Bajaj v. State NCT of Delhi [ (1999) 3 SCC 259 : 1999 SCC (Cri) 401] , Medchl Chemicals & Pharma (P) Ltd. v. Biological E. Ltd. [ (2000) 3 SCC 269 : 2000 SCC (Cri) 615] , Hridaya Ranjan Prasad Verma v. State of Bihar [ (2000) 4 SCC 168 : 2000 SCC (Cri) 786] , M. Krishnan v. Vijay Singh [ (2001) 8 SCC 645 : 2002 SCC (Cri) 19] and Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. v. Mohd. Sharaful Haque [ (2005) 1 SCC 122 : 2005 SCC (Cri) 283] . The principles, relevant to our purpose are: (i) A complaint can be quashed where the allegations made in the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out the case alleged against the accused. For this purpose, the complaint has to be examined as a whole, but without examining the merits of the allegations. Neither a detailed inquiry nor a meticulous analysis of the material nor an assessment of the reliability or genuineness of the allegations in the complaint, is warranted while examining prayer for quashing of a complaint. (ii) A complaint may also be quashed where it is a clear abuse of the process of the court, as when the criminal proceeding is found to have been initiated with mala fides/malice for wreaking vengeance or to cause harm, or where the allegations are absurd and inherently improbable. (ii) A complaint may also be quashed where it is a clear abuse of the process of the court, as when the criminal proceeding is found to have been initiated with mala fides/malice for wreaking vengeance or to cause harm, or where the allegations are absurd and inherently improbable. (iii) The power to quash shall not, however, be used to stifle or scuttle a legitimate prosecution. The power should be used sparingly and with abundant caution. (iv) The complaint is not required to verbatim reproduce the legal ingredients of the offence alleged. If the necessary factual foundation is laid in the complaint, merely on the ground that a few ingredients have not been stated in detail, the proceedings should not be quashed. Quashing of the complaint is warranted only where the complaint is so bereft of even the basic facts which are absolutely necessary for making out the offence. (v) A given set of facts may make out: (a) purely a civil wrong; or (b) purely a criminal offence; or (c) a civil wrong as also a criminal offence. A commercial transaction or a contractual dispute, apart from furnishing a cause of action for seeking remedy in civil law, may also involve a criminal offence. As the nature and scope of a civil proceeding are different from a criminal proceeding, the mere fact that the complaint relates to a commercial transaction or breach of contract, for which a civil remedy is available or has been availed, is not by itself a ground to quash the criminal proceedings. The test is whether the allegations in the complaint disclose a criminal offence or not.” 8. The cheque-in-question is also on record, which revealed that it has been issued on behalf of Amrit Dwellers Private Limited to V.K. Agarwal. The cheque-in-question has not been given to any firm. The cheques-in question was given to the complainant by the petitioner It is not the case of the petitioner that the cheque has not been issued. What is being argued is that the cheque-in-question was given as a security. A security cheque also attracts the provision of Section 138 of the Act. A security cheques is not worthless piece of paper under every circumstances. In the case of Sunil Todi and others vs. State of Gujrat, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 1974, various aspects of the liability regarding cheque has been interpreted. A security cheque also attracts the provision of Section 138 of the Act. A security cheques is not worthless piece of paper under every circumstances. In the case of Sunil Todi and others vs. State of Gujrat, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 1974, various aspects of the liability regarding cheque has been interpreted. The Hon’ble Court observed, “the term debt also includes a sum of money promised to be paid on a future day by reason of a present obligation. A post-dated cheque issued after the debt has been incurred would be covered by the definition of ‘debt’.” Under Section 139 of the Act, there is a presumption in favour of the holder of the cheque with regard to debt and liability. 9. The question which has been raised on behalf of the petitioner is with regard to presumption under Section 139 of the Act. It is being argued that, the cheque was not given under any legally enforcement debt and liability, but this is purely a question of fact. This Court at this stage may not record any finding, on factual aspects. It is a defence available to the petitioner, which he may take during trial. 10. In so far as statutory notice is concerned, learned counsel for the petitioner on a question posed by the Court would submit that, in fact, petitioner did not choose to file any reply to the notice. Even if, in the complaint, it is stated that the work was undertaken by the firm owned by the petitioner, the notice does not become invalid. The cheques in question has been given to V.K. Agarwal. Notice was issued by V.K. Agarwal. 11. The affidavit filed by the power of attorney holder as evidence under Section 200 of the Code has been filed as Annexure No.3 to the petition. A bare perusal of it reveals that it is executed by power of attorney holder Gaurav Agarwal, but the Oath Commissioner, records in it that this affidavit was sworn, signed and verified by Vijendra Kumar Agarwal. This may not be termed as a small mistake. Affidavit is not a document, which may be taken so lightly. The affidavit under Section 200 of the Code, filed by Gaurav Agarwal as Annexure No.3 to the petition has not been sworn by him as per the endorsement made over it. This may not be termed as a small mistake. Affidavit is not a document, which may be taken so lightly. The affidavit under Section 200 of the Code, filed by Gaurav Agarwal as Annexure No.3 to the petition has not been sworn by him as per the endorsement made over it. It is sworn by Vijendra Kumar Agarwal, but then Vijendra Kumar Agarwal did not sign it. This affidavit may not be read into evidence. The fact remains that the court below while summoning the petitioner on 26.08.2013, took into consideration the affidavit(s) given by Gaurav Agarwal under Section 200 of the Code. This makes the summoning order bad in the eye of law. 12. In view of the above, this Court is of the view that the summoning order deserves to be set aside, but the respondent no.2 should be given a liberty to file fresh evidence or fresh affidavit at the stage of 200 and 202 of the Code. 13. The summoning order dated 26.08.2013, passed in the case as well as the judgment and order dated 06.06.2019, passed in the revision are hereby set aside. The matter is remanded back to the trial court with the liberty to respondent no.2/complainant to adduce fresh evidence at the stage of 200 and 202 of the Code. Once it is done, the proceeding of the case shall proceed further. 14. Petitioner as well as the respondent no.2 shall appear before the court below on 09.02.2022. The petition stands disposed of accordingly.