1. This is an application u/s. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the order dated 17.8.2004 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge XI, Patna in Cr. Revision No. 295/2004 and its consequential order dated 1.12.2004 passed by Mr. Manoj Kumar No. 1I, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Patna in Complaint Case No. 2220(C) of 2003 where cognizance u/s. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (N.I. Act) and sec. 420 Indian Penal Code, 1860 has been taken against the petitioners.

2. Heard.

3. The prosecution case in the complaint petition filed by the complainant (O.P. No. 2) in short is that the complaint Institute of Entrepreneurship Development (ED), Bihar is a registered society and dealing with the scheme of Computer Education, studies and its expansion among the young generation. Accused No. 1 M/s. Aryabhatt Computer is a registered society of which accused Nos. 2 and 3 (petitioner Nos. 1 and 2) are the Chairman and the Secretary respectively. They are engaged in computer education and providing computer studies. Accused No. 1 through accused Nos. 2 and 3 approached the complainant for joint certification of computer and information technology based programme for providing computer education and studies and represented themselves with having sound financial and good reputation in this field. On 12.11.2002 the accused persons (petitioners) contacted the executive officials of the complainant and gave an impressive assurance and belief of their experiences, workmanship and skill regarding computer education and requested to appoint their firm as master franchisee and gave a categorical assurance of generating income from the joint venture activities. The complainant believed on their assurance and a Memorandum of Undertaking (MOU) was executed on 18.11.2002. According to the MOU the complainant appointed many members of computer and information technology course and after consultation information technology course was prepared and for that the accused persons were to provide necessary support to participate the operation all over India directly or by appointing sub-franchisees by the accused and establish a network for the same. It was agreed between the parties that accused No. 1 would pay to the complainant the franchisee fee of Rs. 1 crore within a period of three years from 15.1.2003 and in first year the accused would pay Rs. 20 lacs, in second year 37 lacs and in third year 43 lacs and the annual fee was to be paid by way of 12 post-dated cheques. According to the terms of MOU non-interest bearing security money to the complainant was to be refunded on expiry of MOU. The security money, however, was to be fulfilled in case of premature exit of accused No. 1. Accused No. 1 was to share the revenue realised from the students by way of fee and other charges with the complainant and such share would he 10% of the fee and other charges. The fee from the students would be collected in terms of demand draft payable to the complainant as month to month basis.

4. The further case of the complainant is that the accused persons gave 12 postdated cheques for a sum of Rs. 20 lacs towards franchisee fees for the year 2003 and petitioner No. 1 assured the complainant that the cheques would be cleared timely. The cheques were of Rs. 1,67,000.00 each. The first three cheques were dated 15.2.2003, 15.3.2003 and 15.4.2003 respectively. The remaining 9 cheques were dated 15.5.2003 to 15.1.2004. All the cheques were drawn under the joint signature of the petitioners on ICICI Bank. The first cheque was presented by the complainant to their Bankers, Bank of India, Patna Branch first in the month of March, 2003 and again on 15.4.2003 and was dishonoured both the times due to insufficiency of funds of M/s. Aryabhatt Computers with ICICI Bank. The petitioners were duly informed about dishonour of the cheque. Similarly the second cheque dated 15.3.2003 was presented on 15.4.2003 but was dishonoured on 16.4.2003 due to insufficiency of f