JUDGMENT :- Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith with the consent of parties. Respondent waives service. 2. The Respondent has initiated prosecution against the petitioner in respect of offence punishable under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. (Hereinafter referred to "said Act"), on the premises that the cheque issued towards the satisfaction of subsisting liability was dishonoured and in spite of the notice the Respondent did not make repayment within stipulated period of 15 days. After recording verification of the complainant the learned Magistrate issued process against the petitioner in respect of the offence under Sec. 138 of the said Act. After his appearance the Petitioner filed an application for recall of the process. Application Exh. 21 came to be rejected by the trial court by order dated 16th January, 2006 on the ground that the Court has no powers 10 recall the process. 3. The present petition is filed for quashing the impugned order. Previously in pursuance of the judgment of the Apex Court in die case of K.M. Mathew Vs. State of Kerala and anr., (1992) 1 SCC 217 , inherent powers used to be exercised by the Trial court for recalling the process. However, in the case of Adalat Prasad Vs. Rooplal jindal and Ors., 2004(4) Mh.L..J. 274 : [2004 ALL MR (Cri) 3131 (S.C.)], the view taken in K.M. Mathew's case came to be overruled and it is held that the court doesn't have inherent powers. Therefore, the only remedy in the cases where process is issued is to move the High Court for of die proceedings. 4. The impugned application was filed prior to this judgement and was dealt with by the trial court, however, even during that period the trial court has observed that it has no jurisdiction to recall the process. After the pronouncement of the judgement in the case of Adalat Prasad [2004 ALL MR (Cri) 3131 (S.C.)] (Supra) law laid down in that case is applicable to all the pending cases. Therefore, the impugned order passed by the learned Magistrate refusing to recall the process on the ground that he has no jurisdiction to do so, is justified. In this view of the matter the petition fails and is rejected. 5. Therefore, the impugned order passed by the learned Magistrate refusing to recall the process on the ground that he has no jurisdiction to do so, is justified. In this view of the matter the petition fails and is rejected. 5. At this juncture the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that liberty be granted to initiate fresh proceeding for quashing of the F.I.R. In view of the fact that there is change in the earlier view after the judgment of Adalat Prasad, it would be in the interest of justice to grant liberty to the petitioner to file appropriate proceeding for quashing of the F.I.R. if deemed fit. 6. Application is therefore disposed off. Rule discharged. Application dismissed.