M.N. Bhandari, J. - (1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties on the criminal miscellaneous petition.
(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that cognizance of the offence has been taken ignoring the fact that private complaint was filed as counter blast on the action under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short "N.I. Act"), the petitioner gave a notice to the respondent-complainant on dishonour of cheque. The said notice was received by him on 03.02.2008 itself. The complainant-respondent was then convicted in the case initiated by the petitioner herein under Section 138 of N.I.Act. It is as a counter blast and to overcome with the cheque given to the petitioner that fraudulent complaint was filed and for which, cognizance has been taken by the Court below.During the intervening period of this case, the respondent-complainant has been convicted in the case initiated under Section 138 of N.I.Act. It has bearing on the present case. Accordingly, the order taking cognizance so as the order passed on revision petition may be set aside.
(3.) Learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for the respondent-complainant, on the other hand submits that petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. is nothing but a second revision petition prohibited by law. The order of cognizance is after taking note of the fact of this case, thus order may not be interfered.;