Hon’ble Het Singh Yadav, J. : The applicant has preferred this application? invoking inherent jurisdiction? of this Court under Section? 482 Criminal Procedure Code (in short the Code) with a prayer to quash the Complaint Case No. 1008 of 2008 (Sant Kumar Mittal Vs. Ajay Tau) under Section 420 I.P.C. pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate-I, Agra and also summoning order dated 23.6.2008 passed by Judicial Magistrate-I, Agra against the applicant.

2. To appreciate the controversy involved in this case the facts in brief are that the Opposite Party No. 2 filed complaint against the applicant alleging therein that the applicant drew a cheque of Rs. 25 lacs on his account maintained by him with Canara Bank for payment of the amount being part of the sale consideration relating to sale-deed executed by the O.P. No. 2 in favour of the applicant and two other persons. The O.P. No. 2 presented the cheque to the bank of the applicant through his bank within a period of its validity. However, it was returned unpaid by the bank of the applicant for the reason?? ‘drawer’s signatures differs from specimen given’. The O.P. No. 2 served? notice upon the applicant as per provisions of