JUDGMENT
Harbans Lal, J.
1. This petition under Section 482 Cr. P.C. is directed against the order dated 17.6.2006 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Hindaun city in Criminal Revision Petition No. 51/2006 whereby the revision petition has been dismissed and the order dated 8.5.2006 of the learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hindauncity in Criminal Case No. 439/2005 taking cognizance against the petitioner for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1882 (in short ‘the Act’) has been affirmed.
2. The relevant facts are that the accused-petitioner borrowed a sum of Rs. 1,20,000/- from complainant non-petitioner Ashok Kumar Goyal on 11.2.2004 and issued a cheque No. 411068 dated 16.2.2004 in his favour. The said cheque was cancelled on 20.5.2005 and another cheque No. 411055 for a sum of Rs. 1,40,000/- was issued in his favour. On presentation of the said cheque in the bank, the same was dishonoured and returned on 9.7.2005 with the remark “insufficient funds”. The notice sent to the accused-petitioner on 11.7.2005 was refused on 19.7.2005 and returned on 21.7.2005 to the complainant non-petitioner No. 1 with the remark that the same was refused. The complainant non- petitioner No. 1, then, filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Act against the petitioner on 22.7.2005 before the Court of learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hindauncity who took cognizance on 25.7.2005. The complaint and the order of taking cognizance being premature, the order taking cognizance was challenged by way of a revision petition before the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Hindauncity who allowed the revision on 25.2.2006 accepting the contention raised on behalf of the accused- petitioner and remitted the case back to the learned trial Court with the direction to pass fresh order in the light of the law laid down in this behalf.
3. The learned trial Court again passed under on 8.5.2006 taking cognizance against the accused-petitioner holding that in the meanwhile the complaint has matured. The accused-petitioner again preferred a revision petition against the said order which was disallowed vide impugned order dt. 17.6.2006. Hence, this petition.
4. Learned Counsel for the accused-petitioner has contended that both the learned courts below have committed grave illegality. The complaint as well as the order taking cognizance were premature which tentamounts to abuse of the process of the court. The courts below ought to have rejected the complaint and acquitted the accused persons.
5. After hearing learned Counsel for the petitioner, I have perused the orders of the learned trial Court as well as of the learned revisional court.
6. It may be stated at the out set that the facts of the case are not in dispute. The complaint as well as the order taking cognizance thereon were premature and the learned Addl. Sessions Judge rightly allowed the revision preferred against the order dated 25.7.2005 and quashed the said order. The matter was rightly remitted back to the learned Court below for passing fresh order in the light of the settled law in this behalf. Thereafter, the learned trial Court again passed order on 8.5.2006 taking cognizance of the offence under Section 138 of the Act against the said order has been rightly disallowed in view of the settled law in this behalf. Relying upon the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Narsingh Das Taparia v. Gordhan Das Partani 2000 (4) RCR 39, this Court has held in Naveen Project Ltd. and Ors. v. State (2005 (6) CRJ 556 that where the complaint is premature, the same cannot be rejected on this ground alone and cognizance can be taken on such a complaint after it is matured. The order of the learned court below is well considered and well reasoned and is based on the settled law in this behalf.
7. There is no abuse of the process of the Court. It is also not otherwise expedient in the interest of justice to exercise inherent powers of this Court in this matter.
8. It is well settled that the order taking cognizance is an order against which revision lies and in the instant case, a revision has actually been filed and rejected by the learned Court below. The present petition seems to have been filed to circumvent the bar on filing of second revision provided under Section 397(3) Cr. P.C. which is not permissible under law. The inherent powers under Section 482 Cr. P.C. of this Court cannot be exercised as a substitute for second revision as has been held by this Court in Arun Lahoti and Anr. v. State of Rajasthan and Anr. III 2005 BC 470 relying upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Rajanthi v. C. Ganesan .
9. In view of the fore-going discussion, this petition is neither maintainable nor it has any substance.
10. Consequently, this petition deserves to be and is hereby dismissed.