IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P No.526 of 2023 Sarabjit Singh @ Sarabjeet Singh, aged about 59 years, S/o Joginder Singh, R/o Plot No.1, C-Road, Air Base Colony, Kadma, Near Geeta Bhawan, P.O. kadma, P.S. Kadma, Jamshedpur, Kadma, District- East Singhbhum. … Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Kusum Sharma, W/o Kamal Kishore Sharma, R/o Flat No. 302, Maninder Tower, Near PNB Bank New Development Area Golmuri, P.O and P.S. Golmuri, Jamshedpur, District-East Singhbhum … Opposite Parties Coram: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA For the Petitioner : Mr. Navneet Sahay, Adv. For the State : Mr. Shailesh Kumar Sinha, A.P.P. For the O.P. No.2 : Mr. Rohit Sinha, Adv. Order No.07/Dated- 13.01.2025 1. Petition is filed for quashing the order dated 07.04.2021 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Jamshedpur passed in C/1 case no. 671 of 2021 where by the cognizance under Section 138 of N.I. Act has been against petitioner. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that order taking cognizance is illegal as the learned Magistrate has not considered that all the legal required as required by the complainant has not been fulfilled. It is further submitted that the petitioner has never issued any cheque to the complainant for the purposes of discharging his liability towards the complainant. The cheques mentioned in the complaint petition were lost by the petitioner and an information was duly given to the bank regarding losing of the cheques vide letter dated 18.09.2020 and petitioner has also informed the Sitaramdera Police Station on 03.10.2020 wherein the petitioner informed the police that two cheques bearing the signature of the petitioner has been lost and the same could be used for illegal purposes. 3. On the other hand, learned for O.P. No.2 (complainant) appeared and submitted that the present case is fixed at the stage of recording the statement of accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. Therefore, the order sought to be quashed has no justification and in the present stage of proceeding and petitioner is also participating in the trial of the case. Therefore, this petition should be dismissed at the stage of admission. 4. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and present status of the case as pointed by the learned counsel for O.P. No.2 and not objected by the learned counsel for the petitioner, there is no justification for continuing this petition to admit for hearing on merits. Therefore, this petition is dismissed at the stage of admission itself. (Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.) Amar/-