ORDER : 1. Leave granted. 2. Heard Mr. Satyam Pandey, learned counsel appearing for the appellant (complainant). Also heard Ms. Reeta Chaudhary, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 1 (accused). 3. Notice in this case was issued on 19.02.2024 with the following order: “Delay condoned. Heard Mr. Kisalaya Shukla, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner(complainant). Accordingly to the counsel, the High Court has committed a factual error saying that the respondent(accused) had not issued the cheques in question from his account and thereafter, quashed the proceeding initiated against him under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The petitioner’s counsel would refer to Annexures P-2 and P-3 to say that the respondent, Sandeep Dabas, had issued two separate cheques of Rs.1,00,000/-and Rs.50,000/-respectively, and therefore, the High Court erred by restricting the consideration to the cheque of Rs.5,00,000/-(Annexure P-1), issued by the father of the respondent. Issue notice, returnable in four weeks.” 4. Since then, counter affidavit is filed on behalf of the State (respondent No. 2) by the Circle Officer, Sahibabad, District Ghaziabad where it is averred that the High Court did not consider the two other cheques (Cheque No. 382087, 382088), which formed part of the Complaint Case No. 1977 of 2012 while passing the impugned order and has solely relied on the pleadings made in relation to Cheque No. 263458, issued by the father of the accused. 5. Importantly, in the counter affidavit filed by the accused himself, it is averred that he himself issued two cheques for Rs.50,000/-and Rs.1,00,000/-respectively, in favour of the appellant and those cheques were dishonoured on 04.10.2012. 6. The above averments in the affidavit filed by the accused himself and by the Circle Officer would indicate that the impugned order of the High Court (dated 05.10.2023) is based on incorrect facts and the Court therefore erroneously recorded that Sandeep had not issued the cheques from his account but the cheques were issued by his father. 7. The above would suggest the High Court erred in quashing the proceedings in the Complaint Case No. 1977 of 2012 registered under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and the complaint proceedings are restored to the file of the learned ACJM-II, Ghaziabad. The matter should then proceed in accordance with law. The above would suggest the High Court erred in quashing the proceedings in the Complaint Case No. 1977 of 2012 registered under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and the complaint proceedings are restored to the file of the learned ACJM-II, Ghaziabad. The matter should then proceed in accordance with law. As it is an old matter, the Court should give due priority for early disposal of the case. 8. With the above, the matter stands disposed of.