HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No.5953/2025 Radheyshyam Vedi S/o Mahaveer Prasad Vedi, Aged About 42 Years, R/o Jaitpur, Po. Partapur, Tehsil Neemrana, District Kotputli, Behror, Rajasthan. ----Petitioner Versus 1. Cheluram S/o Ramjilal, Aged About 68 Years, R/o Hudiya Kalan, Tehsil Neemrana, District Kotputli, Behror, Rajasthan. 2. State Of Rajasthan, Through P.p. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Naman Pareek Ms. Poonam Rao For Respondent(s) : Mr. Amit Punia, PP JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 31/10/2025 1. By way of filing this criminal misc. petition, a challenge has been led to the impugned order dated 06.08.2025 by which a cognizance has been taken against the petitioner under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short “the Act of 1881”) and the entire proceedings arising out of the complaint submitted by the respondent-complainant. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the cheque in question was given as a security, thereafter a compromise took place between the parties inspite of above. Learned counsel submits that the complainant has misused the security by presenting the same before the banker and got it dis-honored. Learned counsel submits that a reply to the notice sent by the (2 of 3) [CRLMP-5953/2025] complainant was submitted, wherein all these facts were incorporated and, thereafter, the FIR was also registered against the complainant for the aforesaid reason. Learned counsel submits that, under these circumstances, continuation of the proceedings against the petitioner was tantamount to abuse of the process of law, hence, the entire proceedings arising out of the complaint filed by the complainant be quashed. 3. Heard and considered the submissions made at the Bar and perused the material available on the record. 4. Perusal of the record indicates that a complaint under Section 138 of the Act of 1881 has been submitted by the complainant-respondent against the petitioner on account of a dis- honored cheque. 5. Whether the cheque was given as a security, whether any compromise has been arrived at between the parties and whether the cheque was mis-used by the complainant, all these are the question of facts, which are required to be proved before the trial court at the appropriate stage of the trial. At the stage of taking cognizance, only the prima facie case is required to be seen. This Court while exercising the discretionary powers contained under Section 528 of BNSS is not supposed to make a roving/fishing inquiry and to embark upon a probe to ascertain the genuineness and reliability of the allegations mentioned in the FIR. Certainly, it would be a task to be undertaken by the Investigating Officer, therefore, this Court does not deem it just and proper to interfere with the course of investigation. (3 of 3) [CRLMP-5953/2025] 6. With the aforesaid observations, the criminal misc. petition stands disposed of. Stay application as well as all applications (pending, if any) also stand disposed of. 7. However, the petitioner would be at liberty to take all available defences before the trial court at appropriate stage of the trial. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J Karan/31