Hon’ble Rajeev Misra, J.—These two Criminal Misc. Applications under Section 482 Cr.P.C. arise out of Complaint Case No. 1221 of 2016 (Smt. Kumkum v. Manoj Pathak) under Section 138 N. I. Act, P.S.- Anoopshahar District-Bulandshahar. As such both the criminal misc. applications are inter-connected. Therefore, the same are being disposed of finally by a common judgment.

2. I have heard Mr. V. P. Srivastava, the learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Ansul Rajan Srivastava for the applicants, the learned A.G.A. for the State and Mr. Rahul Sripat assisted by Mr. Amithabh Agarwal and Mr. Ishir Sripat for the opposite party No. 2.

3. Criminal Misc. Application No. 12997 of 2018 has been filed by M/S Usher Agro Ltd. challenging the order dated 16.2.2018 passed by the Sessions Judge, Bulandshahar in Criminal Revision No. 86 of 2018 (Usher Agro Ltd. v. State of U.P. and another) as well as the summoning order dated 10.4.2017 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Anoopshahar, District-Bulandshahar in Complaint Case No. 1221 of 2016 (Smt. Kumkum v. Manoj Pathak) under Section 138 N. I. Act, P.S.- Anoopshahar District-Bulandshahar.

4. Criminal Misc. Application No. 13085 of 2018 has been filed by Manoj Pathak challenging the order dated 18.8.2017 passed by the Sessions Judge, Bulandshahar in Criminal Revision No. 344 of 2016 (Manoj Pathak v. State of U.P. and another) as well as the summoning order dated 28.6.2016 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Anoopshahar, District-Bulandshahar under Section 138 N. I. Act, P.S.- Anoopshahar District-Bulandshahar.

5. Brief facts giving rise to the present criminal misc. applications are that a buisiness deal took place between the Company, namely, M/s Usher Agro Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the Company) and M/s Balaji Traders Navin Mandi, Anoopshahar, Bulandshahar of which the opposite party No. 2, Smt. Kumkum wife of Vipin Kumar is the sole proprietor. As per the said deal, the Company was to purchase paddy valuing 15 lacs from M/s Balaji Traders Navin Mandi Anoopshahar, Bulandshahar.

6. Accordingly the Company gave a cheque valued at Rs. 15 lakhs bearing No. 000318 dated 18.4.2016 drawn on Allahabad Bank, Kosikala Branch, District-Mathura pertaining to Account No. 50248345215 to the Firm M/s Balaji Traders. The said cheque was signed by Manoj Pathak, the authorized signatory of the Company, one of the applicants herein.

7. The cheque was presented in the concerned bank i.e., Allahabad Bank, Anoopshahar Branch, District-Bulandshahar by the opposite party No. 2, namely, Smt. Kumkum,. However, the same was not encashed on account of insufficient funds. As such, a memo dated 18.4.2016 was sent by the Bank namely Allahabad Bank, Anoopshahar Branch, District-Bulandshahar informing the opposite party No. 2 that the cheque dated 18.4.2016 could not be encashed for lack of sufficient funds.

8. Consequently, as per the mandate of Section 138 of the N. I. Act the opposite party No. 2 through her counsel sent a legal notice dated 20.4.2016 to the applicant Manoj Pathak asking him to pay the amount payable under the disputed cheque. The said legal notice was replied vide reply dated 10.5.2016. Thereafter, a rejoinder dated 19.5.2016 was sent in response to the reply dated 10.5.2016.

9. As inspite of the notice dated 20.4.2016, the amount payable under the disputed cheque was not paid, the opposite party No. 2 initiated proceedings under Section 138 N. I. Act by filing a complaint dated 30.5.2016. The same was registered as Complaint Case No. 1221 of 2016 (Smt. Kumkum v. Manoj Pathak) under Section 138 N. I. Act, P. S. -Anoopshahar, District-Bulandshahar.

10. The complainant opposite party No. 2 in support of the complaint filed her affidavit, copy of the notice dated 10.5.2016, the cheque dated 18.4.2016 and the Memo of the cheque dated 18.4.2016.

11. The A. C. J. M., Anoopshahar, District-Bulandshahar upon consideration of the allegations made in the complaint an