1. Invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner-Bhushan Power & Steel Ltd., a company registered under the Indian Companies Act through its Director Sanjay Singal has moved this Court for quashing of the entire criminal proceeding including the First Information Report being Dhanbad (Bank More), P.S. Case No. 708 of 2012 pending in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad.

2. The prosecution case, which is relevant for the proper adjudication of the issue involved in this case, in short, is that at the instance of the then officer of Punjab National Bank, Bank More, Dhanbad, the aforesaid case was instituted under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471/34 of the Indian Penal Code with the allegation that on 29.06.2012 two cheques dated 25.06.2012 for an amount of Rs.3.30 lacs and Rs.4.20 lacs respectively were presented by ICICI and Indusind Bank, Dhanbad branch for clearance in the bank in favour of one Aranya Traders and Sushil Singh respectively and the said cheques were issued by the petitioner-company with the authorized signature of Sanjay Singal @ Sanjay Singhla (the petitioner no.2) and they were issued from bank account no.0131008700000327 having its account in Punjab National Bank, 74 Janpath, New Delhi. After proper verification, those two cheques were cleared by Dhanbad Branch of Punjab National Bank but later on information received from the Janpath Branch, New Delhi of the said bank that the aforesaid two cheques were forged and fabricated and direction was given to respective Managers of ICICI and Indusind Bank of Dhanbad Branch to stop the payment. It is alleged that there was a conspiracy between the accused person to deceive and defraud the Bank by getting those forged cheques cleared and in that conspiracy this petitioner alongwith owner of Aranya Traders Kunj Bihari and Sushil Singh were involved.

3. Before I adverting to the submissions made by the counsels appearing for the petitioners as well as the respondents, it is necessary to bring on record the background of the case. The petitioner-company is a company registered under the Indian Companies Act and the petitioner no.2 is Chairman-cum-Managing Director of the said company and is one of the authorized signatory of the company to operate the company accordingly. The said company has plants for manufacturing and processing of steel in Chandigarh, Kolkata and in the State of Orissa with an investment of approximately more than Rs.35,000/- crores and the average turnover of the company is around Rs.12,000/- crores per year. For the purpose of carrying out its business the company has already employed more than ten thousand persons and opportunities have been given to lacks of people by way of incidental services to the main activity of manufacturing and trading of the steel production.

4. Mr. Sumeet Gadodia, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners assailing the entire criminal proceeding and the First Information Report as misconceived and bad in law, seriously contended that the allegations made in the written report/F.I.R. even if taken at their face value as true, no offence is made out against the petitioners as there is no specific allegation of any act or involvement or role played by the petitioners in the alleged offence and as such the initiation of the proceeding or continuance thereof against the petitioners is bad in law. It was also submitted that the two original cheques are still intact and is kept with the petitioners and the alleged two cheques were never issued by the company with the signature of the petitioner no.2. It was also submitted that fraud has been committed upon the petitioner’s company by fraudulently forging the two cheques and withdrawing money from the bank account of the petitioner’s company. The petitioner has been wrongly arrayed as accused in this case. It was also submitted that at the instance of the company a case for cheating an