ORDER : By way of instant petition, petitioner has sought the quashing of Complaint No.29-III/2022, titled as Shyam Lal Vs. Bed Ram, pending in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Court No.2, Mandi, District Mandi, H.P. and also order dated 21.01.2022, passed by the said Court. 2. The precise ground on which petitioner has prayed for aforesaid relief is that the complaint filed by respondent against the petitioner under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, is without any cause of action. As per petitioner, he is under no legal liability to pay any amount to the respondent much less the amount as claimed in the complaint filed by him. Petitioner further submits that respondent has misused the signed cheque of petitioner, which was lost in the year 2014. The fact of the matter, according to petitioner, is that he has filed a complaint No. 186- III/17/14 under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, against respondent way back in 2014 as the cheques issued by respondent, in favour of petitioner, to discharge his outstanding legal liability had remained unpaid on presentation. Said complaint is still pending adjudication before learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Court No. 2, Mandi District Mandi, H.P. Respondent has been duly served. Since, petitioner already is in litigation with respondent, there is no question of any cheque being issued by him in favour of the respondent, as he was under no legal liability to do so. 3. Per-contra, the case of respondent is that the petitioner had issued the cheque favouring respondent with the undertaking that petitioner would withdraw his Complaint No. 186- III/17/14 and in case of failure to do so, respondent would be having right to present the cheque, in lieu of harassment caused to him. Thus, the cheque against which the complaint has been filed by the respondent against petitioner is stated to be for lawful consideration. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record. 5. The facts of the case, if seen chronologically, reveal that petitioner filed a complaint under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, against respondent in December, 2014 with the allegation that respondent was a property dealer and had undertaken a deal of sale of property at Village Katrain, District Kullu, H.P. from a willing seller in favour of the petitioner. 5. The facts of the case, if seen chronologically, reveal that petitioner filed a complaint under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, against respondent in December, 2014 with the allegation that respondent was a property dealer and had undertaken a deal of sale of property at Village Katrain, District Kullu, H.P. from a willing seller in favour of the petitioner. A sum of Rs.17,00,000/-had been paid by petitioner to respondent for said purpose. Respondent failed to finalise the deal and issued cheque No. 922422, dated 22.08.2014 for a sum of Rs. 17,00,000/- drawn on Punjab National Bank, Branch Aut, District Mandi, HP in favour of the petitioner in order to repay the amount. Before the cheque could be encashed, respondent represented that in case petitioner paid him additional sum of Rs. 7,00,000/-, the deal would be through. Accordingly, petitioner paid additional sum of Rs. 7,00,000/- to respondent. Again, the deal failed and respondent issued another cheque dated 15.10.2014 bearing No. 922423 in the sum of Rs. 7,00,000/- favoring petitioner. Both the above noted cheques were dishonoured on presentation. Petitioner issued notice to respondent demanding the cheque amounts to be paid to him within 15 days from the date of receipt of notice. Despite receipt of notice, respondent did not make the payment. Accordingly, the petitioner filed the complaint. 6. Petitioner, on 24.11.2014, reported to the police, vide D.D.R No. 23, recorded at Police Station Bhuntar, District Kullu, H.P. that his documents including a cheque book issued by H.D.F.C. Bank, had been stolen from his parked vehicle. 7. During the pendency of the complaint filed by the petitioner against respondent, a notice dated 16.12.2021 was received by the petitioner issued on behalf of the respondent alleging therein that the petitioner had issued cheque No. 000069, dated 25.10.2021 in favour of the respondent, amounting to Rs. 30,00,000/- drawn on H.D.F.C. Bank, Kullu, H.P., for discharge of legal liability, but the same was dishonoured, as the signatures of drawer were different. Accordingly, a demand for Rs. 30,00,000/- was made by respondent from petitioner to be paid within 15 days. Petitioner replied to the said notice, through his counsel, vide reply dated 04.01.2022. The factum of earlier transactions between the parties and pendency of complaint filed by petitioner against respondent was highlighted. Accordingly, a demand for Rs. 30,00,000/- was made by respondent from petitioner to be paid within 15 days. Petitioner replied to the said notice, through his counsel, vide reply dated 04.01.2022. The factum of earlier transactions between the parties and pendency of complaint filed by petitioner against respondent was highlighted. It was also pointed out that on 13.05.2015 also another cheque, out of the same cheque book which had been stolen in 2014, was presented for encashment, but the petitioner could not take appropriate legal action at that time as the banker had not disclosed the identity of the respondent. The factum of issuance of cheque by petitioner in favour of the respondent was specifically denied. It was alleged as a counter that respondent had again misused another cheque, out of the stolen cheque book. 8. Petitioner made another complaint to the police, regarding misuse of stolen cheques, after receiving aforesaid notice. 9. Respondent then filed impugned complaint against petitioner with averments that petitioner was interested to purchase a land at Village Katrain, District Kullu, H.P. that belonged to Amritsar Diocesan Trust Association. Respondent was known to the Chairman of the Trust and hence was involved in the deal. It is further alleged by respondent in his complaint that petitioner had paid him some amount for expenses etc., but had also received two cheques as security/guarantee towards the success of the deal. An agreement to sell was executed between the G.P.A. of the Trust and petitioner on 23.06.2014. Petitioner is alleged to have misused those two securities cheques against respondent. It is further alleged that subsequently the deal failed and petitioner had promised to withdraw the complaint filed by him against respondent and in order to secure the performance of said promise, he had issued a cheque dated 25.10.2021 in favour of the respondent. Since the petitioner failed to withdraw his complaint, respondent presented the cheque issued by petitioner for encashment and when the same was not honoured, the impugned complaint was filed. 10. It becomes evident from the above noticed facts that petitioner and respondent were involved in some deal relating to sale and purchase of property. Consequently, there are allegations and counter allegations from both the sides. Petitioner and respondent have filed their respective complaints under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act by making counter allegations. 10. It becomes evident from the above noticed facts that petitioner and respondent were involved in some deal relating to sale and purchase of property. Consequently, there are allegations and counter allegations from both the sides. Petitioner and respondent have filed their respective complaints under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act by making counter allegations. Such allegations and counter allegations are subject to proof during trial of the respective complaints. It is not the case of either side that the cheques used against them by the other side were not signed by them. It being so, the initial presumption to the cheques is available under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Under Section 139 (supra), the holder of the cheque is presumed to be holding such cheque for discharge, in whole or in part of any debt or other liability, unless contrary is proved. 11. This Court exercises restrictive jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C; which can be exercised only for the purpose either to protect the interest of justice or to save the abuse of process of law. None of the situations are warranted in the facts of instant case. The parties are to prove their respective cases in accordance with law. This court will not venture into the question of facts. 12. Resultantly, there is no merit in the petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall also stand disposed of.