ORDER :

1. By way of this misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. the accused petitioners have sought prayer for quashing of the entire criminal proceedings pending against them in the court of learned Special Judicial Magistrate (N.I. Act Cases) No. 4, Ajmer, Rajasthan bearing CIS No. 2469/2021 : Dr. Anoop Sharma v. Lakhani Builders Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.

2. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioner No. 1 is a company engaged in construction of residential and commercial establishments and the petitioner nos. 2 & 3 are the Directors of the petitioner No. 1. The respondent No. 2 booked Flat No. 403 in Lakhani's Skyways, Plot No. 7, Sector 5 Ulwe, Navi Mumbari and a total payment of Rs.85,00,000/- has been allegedly made by him. Counsel further contends that the respondent No. 2/complainant cancelled the aforesaid booking was cancelled and requested for refund of payment which was accepted by the petitioners and a 'settlement note' was also executed between the parties wherein it was agreed by both the parties that after deducting taxes of Rs.2,40,000/-, an amount of Rs.78,19,367/- would be the final amount to be paid to the complainant. In lieu of the aforesaid payment, the petitioners issued two cheques of Rs.15,00,000/- and Rs.63,19,367/-. He contends that a cheque bearing No. 000685 dated 21.04.2021 drawn on Bank of Baroda, Vashi, Navi Mumbai Branch for a sum of Rs.63,19,367 was issued in favour of the complainant. However, on presentation of the cheque, it got dishonoured on account of 'funds insufficient'. Thereafter, the respondent No. 2 issued a legal notice to the petitioners. On receipt of such notice, the petitioners gave their reply wherein it was specifically averred that out of two cheques issued to the complainant, one cheque of Rs.15,00,000/- had already been honoured and as regards the second cheque (No. 000685), it was stated in the reply that it was agreed by the respondent No. 2/complainant himself that he would not deposit it and would hold it for some time as covid pandemic was prevalent at the relevant point of time. The respondent-complainant was further informed that they have kept ready two cheques of Rs.31,59,683.50/- each both drawn on Bank of Baroda, Sector-6, Vashi Branch, Navi Mumbai in full and final payment of the dishonoured cheque. Since, no one came to receive these cheques from the complainant side, the petitioners remitted a sum of Rs.31,59,683.50/- each (aggregating to Rs.62,59,367) through RTGS on 09.06.2021 and 06.07.2021 respectively and thus, the entire amount has been paid by the petitioners. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that by suppressing the material facts of this case, the complainant-respondent filed a complaint case under Section 138 N.I. Act against the petitioners in the court of learned Special Judicial Magistrate (N.I Act Cases), No. 4 Ajmer wherein vide order dated 05.07.2021, cognizance has been taken by learned trial court. He also contends that apart from filing of the complaint case under section 138 of the N.I. Act, the complainant-respondent has also filed an FIR No. 354/2021 at Police Station Panchsheel for offence under Section 420 IPC against the petitioners in which, the police after investigation filed negative final report and when the complainant-respondent filed a protest petition, the learned court below also rejected the protest petition. Learned counsel contends that there is a statutory presumption that the sum drawn in the cheque is a debt or liability that is owed by the drawer of the cheque to the drawee whereas the petitioners have already paid the entire agreed amount via RTGS. He thus, submits that continuat