Chandra Bhushan Bajpai, J.

1. Heard on admission. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent/complainant filed a complaint case against the applicant under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (in brevity 'the Act, 1881'). The trial Court has taken cognizance and registered the case under 138 of the Act, 1881 against the applicant and issued summons on 01-03-2013 for appearance of the applicant/accused. On 05-07-2013 after hearing both the parties, particulars of the offence under Section 138 of the Act, 1881 were stated to the applicant/petitioner, the applicant/accused denied, the same was recorded and trial commenced. On 03-06-2015 the applicant filed an application under Section 245 of the Cr.P.C. and prayed that as the complainant failed to prove relation of the accused with Bina Engineering and the authority of the accused giving cheque to the complainant, and also since no notice had been served at the address of the accused. After hearing both the parties, the Court below has dismissed the application filed under Section 245 of the Cr.P.C. holding that the present complaint is triable as summon case for which procedure has been mentioned in Cr.P.C. under Section 251 to Section 259 whereas the application filed by the accused/applicant is under Section 245 of the Cr.P.C. which is applicable in warrant triable cases. Against these three orders dated 01-03-2013, 05-07-2013 and 03-06-2015 the accused/applicant has filed the instant Cr.M.P. under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. invoking inherent jurisdiction of this Court to quash all the above three orders in the interest of justice.

2. Heard learned counsel for the applicant on admission.

3. It is submitted on behalf of the applicant that complainant is Ramesh Agrawal, he is not Ganga Iron & Steel Trading Company. He alleged to be general power of attorney holder. Accused is also not Bina Engineering Company. As per the cause title, accused is made party through Bina Engineering. The complainant and the accused arrayed in the complaint case is not in accordance with law. In para 2 of the complaint, mode and other facts regarding transaction is mentioned. The photocopy of the cheque filed in the complaint goes to show that they are in the name of Ganga Iron & Steel Trading Co. Ltd., they are not for Ramesh Agrawal thereby the complaint as filed is not strictly under the provisions of Section 138 of the Act, 1881. Learned counsel further submitted that provisions of Section 141 of the Act, 1881 is not complied with. If at all in event of prosecution, Bina Engineering and Ganga Iron & Steel Trading Company Limited should also have been made party in the complaint case. Hence, it is submitted that taking cognizance on 01-03-2013, explaining the particulars of offence to the accused/applicant on 05-07-2013 and also order dated 03-06-2015 dismissing the application under Section 245 of the Cr.P.C. are improper and illegal. Learned counsel for the applicant prayed that all the above three orders passed by the trial Court be set aside. In support of the case, learned counsel for the applicant placed reliance on the matter of Aneeta Hada Vs. M/s. Godfather Travels & Tours Pvt. Ltd. 2012(III) L.S.C.T. 212 wherein in criminal appeal referred to Hon'ble Bench of the Apex Court, Hon'ble the Apex Court held in para 48 that:--

"48. Keeping in view the anatomy of the aforesaid provision, our analysis pertaining to Section 141 of the Act would squarely apply to the 2000 enactment. Thus adjudged, the director could not have been held liable for the offence under Section 85 of the 2000 Act. Resultantly, the Criminal Appeal No. 1483 of 2009 is allowed and the proceeding against the appellant is quashed. As far as the company is concerned, it was not arraigned as an accused. Ergo, the proceeding as initiated in the existing incarnation is not maintainable either against the company or against the director. As a logical sequitur, the appeals are allowed and the proceedings in