The main legal point established is that in cases involving allegations of criminal offences, the court must carefully consider the evidence and legal provisions to determine if an offence is made out against the accused.

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, lear-ned counsel for the State and the learned counsel appearing for the complainant-opposite party No. 2.

2. In this miscellaneous applica-tion, prayer is for quashing the entire criminal prosecution, vide Complaint Case No. 287 of 2001, including the order dated 5.9.2001, whereby and whereunder the learned Magistrate has taken cogni-zance against the petitioners; under Secs. 420, 465, 467, 468, 406/409 and 417, IPC and also under Sec. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (herein-after referred to as #24;the Act#25;).

3. The complainant is the Secre-tary of the Voluntary Organisation regis-tered under the Bihar Societies Regis-tration Act and licensed by the Govern-ment of India which accepts any contri-bution from abroad.

4. According to the complainant, he sent proposal to the accused persons for the project of rehabilitation of carpet child labourers in Madhubani. After fulfilling all the required formalities, the Project was sanctioned and an agree-ment was signed on 3rd March, 2000 for a period of three years#25; duration. The budget was also approved and accorded by the Reha, Secretariat. According to the complainant, as per the agreement Rs. 3,13,400.00 was released in his favour and accordingly the Project started its functioning from 16th March, 2000. It is alleged that later although a sum of Rs. 3,90,000.00 was sanctioned, but as against the same only a sum of Rs. 39,000.00 was released which was pointed out to the Programme Co-ordinator-accused No. 2, but she kept on giving false assurance that the same shall be corrected and under the goodwill and gesture and reposing full faith in good conscience in the accused persons, the programme went ahead as usual incurring heavy loss entailing enormous financial pressure on the institution, which is a voluntary organisation.

5. It is alleged that vide letter dated 22.12.2000 a demand draft of Rs. 2,82,454.00 was sent to the complainant along with the acknowledgement receipt by way of second instalment without meeting the loss sustained earlier. The said demand draft was also faulty one as it was issued in the name of #24;Rashtriya Gram Vidhyapith#25; instead of #24;Gramin Vidhyapith#25; which made it non-nego-tiable. On detection of the said defect, the same was sent back to them for necessary correction on 29.12.2000, which was never returned after necessary correc-tion. Complainant was later served with letter dated 22.1.2001 informing him that not only the Project has been can-celled rather the payment of second instalment has also been withdrawn, whereupon the complainant on 13th February, 2001 wrote a letter to accused No. 1, being the Head of the Organisation, apprising them the circumstances leading to the entire episode and the accused persons were reminded also through telephone many time, but there was no response. It is alleged that the complainant met accused No. 1 at his Delhi address, but nothing plausible came out. Thus, according to the complai-nant, such action is contrary to the good behaviour, quite unbecoming, absolutely illegal and criminal in nature such as criminal breach of trust, forgery for the purpose of cheating and forgery of valuable security as in the agreement itself Rs. 3,90,000.00 has been knowingly slashed down to Rs. 39,000.00 . It is, thus, alleged that it is a case of cheating and thereby dishonestly inducing delivery of property or making alteration or destruc-tion of a valuable security.

6. As regards unilateral cancella-tion, it is alleged that the same is highly illegal and gross violation of natural justice, principle of equity, fair play and good behaviour. As regards invoking of Sec. 138 of N.I. Act, it is alleged that the letter requesting the accused persons to make necessary correction on the demand draft has to be taken as a man-datory notice required for the said pur-pose and since the demand draft was issued in lieu of work done as per the scheme, withholding of the s