- (1.) THE order, under which cognizance of the offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I. Act, has been taken against the petitioners, is being sought to be quashed on the ground that the complaint, which was filed in the year 2005, was prematured.
(2.) LEARNED counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that from the acknowledgment showing service of 'Demand Notice', it would appear that the notice had been served in the year 2006, whereas the complaint had been filed in the year 2005. On the other hand, the stands of O.P. No. 2 is that the notice, which had been issued on 30/04/2005, had been served in the year 2005 itself and since, some figure of the date is not clear, this plea is being taken on behalf of the Petitioners, which cannot be allowed to be taken at this stage.
(3.) I do find substance in the submission advanced on behalf of O.P. No.2. This is not the stage to give any finding on the point, raised by the petitioners, rather it is to be looked into by the trial court.;