ORDER : 1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner-complainant aggrieved from the order dated 17.03.2017 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Parbatsar, Nagaur in Criminal Revision No.64/2015 titled as Abdul Salam Vs. State of Raj. & Anr., whereby the revision petition preferred by respondent no. 2 was allowed and the order taking cognizance dated 18.05.2015 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, Parbatsar, District Nagaur was set aside. 2. In nutshell, the facts of the case in hand are that on 27.04.2013, present petitioner filed a criminal complaint alleging inter-alia that he borrowed Rs.2 lac from respondent no. 2 and for convenience of payment, 20 post dated blank cheque bearing his signatures were handed over to respondent No.2. Before proceeding to Haj, he repaid the entire loan amount to respondent No.2 but he did not returned the said blank cheques to him on the ground that as same were not traceable so he would return after his returning from pilgrimage of haj. After return from haj, when petitioner demanded those 20 unused cheques, in response thereto, the respondent replied that said cheques were destroyed by him. Thereafter, on 20.03.2013, petitioner received a notice for demand of Rs.10 lacs from respondent in lieu of dishonored cheque, which was one of those 20 cheques. Alleging misuse of cheque by respondent No.2, the petitioner filed a criminal complaint and on the basis an FIR No.27/2013 for the offences under Sections 420 and 120B of the IPC was registered at Police Station Peelwa. After investigation, a Final Closure Report was submitted by the police. On 23.03.2015, learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Parbatsar proceeded to examine the complainant-petitioner under Section 200 Cr.P.C. other witnesses under Section 202 Cr.P.C. and thereafter on 18.05.2015 passed the order taking cognizance. Aggrieved from order taking cognizance and issuance of arrest warrant respondent No.2, preferred a revision petition before learned Additional Sessions Judge, Parbatsar, (hereinafter referred to as ‘the revisional Court’), which allowed the revision petition and order taking cognizance was set aside. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submitted that the evidence on record established that cheques were not returned on demand by respondent No.2-complainant and thereafter, he had misused one of such cheque by submitting it for encashment before Bank. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submitted that the evidence on record established that cheques were not returned on demand by respondent No.2-complainant and thereafter, he had misused one of such cheque by submitting it for encashment before Bank. He would further submitted that after return of cheque as unpaid, only from receipt of notice dated 20.03.2015, present petitioner came to know about the misuse of cheque by respondent No.2. He would further submitted that respondent No.2 has deliberately & fraudulently misused the cheque to extort a payment of Rs.10 lacs from the petitioner. He would further submitted that the revisional Court has exceeded its jurisdiction, as the material available on record of learned trial Court was sufficient to proceed against respondent No.2. He would submitted that authenticity of evidence can be decided only during trial but without examining the truthfulness of evidence, as submitted by present petitioner, respondent No.2 was exonerated in short cut method. He would submitted that it is mandatory for every Muslim to repay debt before proceeding to Haj and religiously present petitioner had repaid debt before proceeding to Haj. Thus, bonafide of present petitioner cannot be doubted in any manner. He would submitted that as a result of order passed by revisional Court, petitioner have to fulfill illegal demands of respondent No.2 and it is a fit case wherein the order passed by revisional Court have to be set aside. He would submitted that a direction may be issued to the trial Court for early disposal of the case. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 complainant opposed aforesaid submissions on the grounds that after registration of FIR under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C., police filed a final closure report on the ground it is matter of civil nature and no criminal ingredient was found. Learned counsel for respondent No.2-complainant would submitted that there is no proof of repayment of any type of loan and no notice to return cheque was ever served upon respondent No.2. He would submitted that Section 20 of the Negotiable Instruments Act prescribes estoppel against present petitioner to raise the ground as pleaded by him. He would further submitted that after receiving notice for dishonor of cheque due to insufficient funds, the present petitioner has malafidely filed a complaint before the trial Court for registration of FIR. He would submitted that Section 20 of the Negotiable Instruments Act prescribes estoppel against present petitioner to raise the ground as pleaded by him. He would further submitted that after receiving notice for dishonor of cheque due to insufficient funds, the present petitioner has malafidely filed a complaint before the trial Court for registration of FIR. He would submitted that in a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act present petitioner was found guilty on 20.04.2017 and he was sentenced by learned ACJM, Prabatsar. A copy of this order is also annexed with instant petition. He would submitted that ACJM, Parbatsar without application of mind has proceeded ex-parte and passed the order taking cognizance without looking at the grounds of final report as submitted by the police and same was struck down in Revision petition. 5. Heard learned counsel for petitioner as well as learned Public Prosecutor for State and also learned counsel for respondent No.2-complainant. Perused the material available on record. 6. It is an admitted fact that when a cheque of Rs.10 lacs was presented before the bank for payment by respondent No.2, same was dishonored due to insufficient balance whereupon a notice dated 20.03.2013 was sent to present petitioner and a reply dated 01.04.2013 was sent by the petitioner to former. Thereafter, on 26.04.2013 respondent No.2 instituted a case against the present petitioner under Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act. On 27.04.2013, present petitioner filed a criminal complaint against respondent No.2 alleging misuse of blank signed cheque by him. Aforesaid chronological events indicate that it is purely an after thought story, whereby present petitioner was advised to file a criminal complaint. The law over the subject is very well settled that all allegations or defence relating to misuse of cheque and other matters, would be decided in proceedings under Section 138 of the NI Act. Thus, the process adopted by petitioner is not a right step to file a counter criminal complaint and such type of criminal complaint is just misuse of right to approach the Court. The NI Act, itself provides for dealing different situations for offence under section 138 and if there is any defence against dishonor of cheque then same has to be heard and decided in the matter instituted under Section 138 NI Act only, thus, no separate criminal case can be registered on the basis of such defence. 7. The NI Act, itself provides for dealing different situations for offence under section 138 and if there is any defence against dishonor of cheque then same has to be heard and decided in the matter instituted under Section 138 NI Act only, thus, no separate criminal case can be registered on the basis of such defence. 7. Herein, on going through the facts and circumstances of the present case, it is clear that not a single document has been placed on record which could support the petitioner’s case to show that petitioner has repaid the loan amount before proceeding to haj and after payment he demanded return of cheque(s) as given by him to respondent No.2. The record further indicates that present petitioner was found guilty under offence of section 138 NI Act and sentenced accordingly. Thus, the process so adopted by the petitioner was to defeat the case instituted by the respondent no. 2 under section 138 NI Act. 8. In the case at hand, after registration of FIR, police has submitted a final report on the ground that the dispute is of civil nature and it was further disclosed that a criminal case under Section 138 NI Act, filed by respondent No.2 was already pending before Learned ACJM, Parbatsar, thus, while passing the order taking cognizance on 18.05.2015, Learned ACJM had failed to look into the grounds on which final report was filed. This again is a serious flaw in application of mind by learned trial Court, while taking cognizance. The order itself indicated that learned trial Court has not taken note of the fact that final report was filed with respect to one of those cheque No.1381555 for which a case under section 138 NI Act was pending before itself. Thus, the cognizance order dated 18.05.2015 itself was wrong as same was passed by overlooking the grounds of final report. 9. Learned revisional Court while referring to the provision of Section 20 of the NI Act made it clear that holder of cheque is entitled to fill up the cheque and in view of Section 20 of the NI Act mere filling of name and account, no offence is made out. Anyway whatsoever be the case or defence of petitioner, the same was part of proceedings under Section 138 of the NI Act and for that a separate criminal case is impermissible. Anyway whatsoever be the case or defence of petitioner, the same was part of proceedings under Section 138 of the NI Act and for that a separate criminal case is impermissible. Thus, no illegality was committed by the Revisional Court while allowing the revision petition against order of cognizance. 10. In view of the facts as discussed above and considering the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and for the reasons stated herein above, I do not find any reason to interfere in the order dated 17.03.2017 passed by the learned revsional Court, whereby order dated 18.05.2015 passed by learned ACJM, Parbatsar is quashed and set aside resulting thus, the present petition being devoid of merits is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the same is dismissed.