Point of Law
It is true that the court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure cannot go into the truth or otherwise of the allegations and appreciate the evidence if any available on record. Normally, the High Court would not intervene in the criminal proceedings at the preliminary stage/when the investigation/enquiry is pending.

JUDGMENT :

1. This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed to quash the entire proceedings of the Complaint Case No. 21 of 2017 (Naeem Ahmed Ansari Vs. Purna Agencies Pvt. Ltd. & Others), under Sections 138/141 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 as well as the order dated 18th December, 2019 passed by the Additional Judge, Saharanpur on applications filed by the applicants being paper nos. 12-B and 13-B under Sections 251 read with Section 245 Cr.P.C. for seeking discharge in the aforesaid complaint case, whereby the concerned Magistrate has rejected both the applications.

2. Heard Mr. Anil Kumar Srivastava, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Ravi Jha and Ram Bahadur, learned counsel for the applicants and Mr. Amit Singh Chauhan and Mr. Pankaj Srivastava, learned Additional Government Advocates.

3. Perused the material available on record.

4. All these three applications under Section 482 Cr.P.C. raise common questions of law, issue and facts, therefore, clubbed together and are being decided by means of this common order. Application U/s 482 Cr.P.C. No. 7263 of 2020 is being treated to be the leading case.

5. Brief facts, as are borne out from the records of the present application, are as follows:

Opposite party no.2, namely, Naeem Ahmad has made complaint Sections 138/141 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as the “N.I. Act”) before the Additional Judge/Fast Track Court, Saharanpur on 11th January, 2017 against the company, namely, M/s Purna Agencies Private Ltd., IX/Raghubarpura No.2, Gandhi Nagar, Delhi East, Delhi through Authorized Signatory, namely, Kanika Aggi as well as four named accused persons, namely, Kanika Aggi, Kanwal Kumar, Ashok Chaudhary, Harshit Viz (all are alleged to be directors of the said company). In the said complaint it has been stated that Kanika Aggi is the director and authorized signatory and she is responsible for all the work and transactions done against the said company. Regarding payment of money of the opposite party no.2, which was due against the company, a cheque bearing no. 099242 dated 19th October, 2016 for a sum of Rs. 50,00,000/-(Rupees fifty lacs only) drawn on bank account of Purna Agencies Pvt. Ltd. with State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur, G.T. Road, Ludhiana Branch, bearing the signature of Ms. Kanika Aggi on behalf of the all the directors of the company was handed over to opposite party no.2 towards payments of certain monies with an assurance that the same would be honoured immediately on presentation. On the assurance given by all the directors including Kanika Aggi, on 20th October, 2016 when the said cheque was presented by opposite party no.2 with his bank bearing Jammu and Kashmir Bank, Branch Parshwnath Plaza Court Road, Saharanpur, the same was dishonoured and was returned with the Wollongong endorsement on the memo of return: “payment stopped by the drawer”. It has further been stated that when opposite party no.2 conveyed the above to the accused, he was orally informed that the said cheque be presented again in the first week of December, 2016 with an assurance that the cheque would be cleared.

On 5th December, 2016 opposite party no.2, on the basis of such assurance, presented the said cheque again with his bank, being Jammu and Kashmir Bank, Branch Parshwnath Plaza Court Road, Saaharanpur. However, once again, the same was dishonoured and was returned with the following endorsement on the memo of return dated 5th December, 2016:”payment stopped by drawer”.

On 15th December, 2016, a statutory legal notice under Section 138 N.I. Act was issued by opposite party no.2 through his advocate to the applicants, the said company, Kanika Aggi and Kanwar Kumar inter alia seeking payment of Rs. 50,00,000/-(Rupess fifty lacs only) due to opposite party no.2 within a period of 15 days of receipt of notice. However, the aforesaid amount has not been paid to opposite party no.2.

In view of above, opposite party no.2 filed the present compl