JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Ms. Hetvi H. Sancheti, the learned advocate with Mr. Nigam R. Shukla, the learned advocate appearing for the applicant, Mr. Nishit P. Gandhi, the learned advocate appearing for the respondent No.1 and Ms. Maithili D. Mehta, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent No.2 - State.

2. Issue Rule returnable forthwith. Learned advocates appearing for the respective parties waive service of notice of rule on behalf of the respective respondents.

3. By way of this application, the applicant herein has prayed for quashing and setting aside the proceedings arising from Criminal Case No.932 of 2017 pending before the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class Deesa, District: Banaskantha.

4. The opponent No.1 in complaint has alleged that :-

4.1 That the opponent No.1 is in business of Guar Gum and Guar Dana at the address stated in the cause title. That one Hitesh S. Sharma and one Dharmeshbhai Joshi of Dharmesh Agency; both accused Nos.3 and 5 who are not connected with Kapil Corporation in any capacity; had called opponent No.1 and inquired about the price of Guar Dana, to which the opponent No.1 had informed that price of Gaur Dana was Rs.87/- per kg and thereafter, said Hitesh Sharma and Dharmeshbhai Joshi had placed an order to supply 10,000 kg. of Guar Dana which was priced at Rs.87/- per kg. The opponent No.1 has alleged in the complaint that the order was placed in the name of Kapil Corporation, whose proprietor was the applicant herein.

4.2 It is alleged that the goods were sent by the opponent No.1 and before the truck reached at Kapil Corporation, the accused No.3 Hitesh Sharma and accused No.5 Dharmeshbhai Joshi in the criminal case had asked the driver of the truck to deliver the goods at some unknown place and accordingly, the goods were delivered by the driver of the truck at some unknown place. It is further alleged by the opponent No.1 that by invoice dated 26.07.2015, the goods of quantity of 10,000 kgs of the price of Rs.87/- per kg was sent and thereafter, the payment was not made by Hitesh or Dharmeshbhai, i.e. accused Nos.3 and 5 respectively.

4.3 The opponent No.1 had been making frequent demands of payment and therefore, a cheque amounting to Rs.8,70,000/- came to be drawn in favour of the opponent No.1's business establishment, which was dated 20.09.2015 drawn on Kalupur Commercial Bank, Isanpur Branch, at Ahmedabad, which was given to the opponent No.1- complainant. It is further alleged in the complaint that upon depositing the said cheque by the opponent No.1 - complainant in his bank account, the same came to be returned with the remark of 'Payment Stopped' by the Drawee i.e. the applicant. It is further alleged by the opponent No.1 - complainant that in response to continues demand Hitesh i.e. accused No.3 had issued a cheque of Rs.8,70,000/- in favor of opponent No.1 and on depositing the same for the first time, it had bounced because of 'insufficient funds' in the HDFC, Vastrapur Branch Bank Account of Hitesh and, thereafter again on demanding the payment from Hitesh.

4.4 The accused No.3 had issued a cheque dated 16.11.2016, the said cheque came to be deposited by the opponent No.1 - complainant on 17.11.2016 which came to be returned on 22.11.2016. The accused No.3 had assured the opponent No.1 - complainant that the said cheque will be encashed, and therefore, opponent No.1 - complainant re-deposited the said cheque on 11.01.2017 which came to be returned on account of 'insufficient fund' on 13.01.2017. The opponent No.1 - complainant issued a statutory notice under the provisions of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 calling upon the applicants - accused No.3 viz. Hitesh and accused No.5 viz. Dharmeshbhai to make payment of Rs.8,70,000/- within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of the said notice. However, the said notice not replied to either by the accused No.3 viz. Hitesh or accused No.5 viz. Dharmeshbhai, which resulted in