JUDGMENT :

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

2. The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicant with the prayer to quash the proceeding of Criminal Complaint No.1860 of 2019 (old No. 1057/2019) Bank of India Vs. Shiksha Educational Trust and others pending in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate II, Varanasi, under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881, P.S.-Kotwali, Varanasi, including Summoning Order dated 29.04.2019 (Annexure-5) as well as N.B.W. dated 09.07.2020 (Annexure-6) and dismiss the Criminal Complaint No. 1860; Bank of India Vs. Shiksha Educational Trust and others dated 11.03.2019 (Annexure-3).

3. It appears that the applicant nos. 2 and 3 have challenged the proceedings more particularly after the non-bailable warrant came to be issued on them. They had not challenged the summoning order at the first instance.

4. As far as averments made in the application are concerned it has been submitted by the learned A.G.A., are not such which would permit this Court to quash the proceedings. The provisions of Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashing are not made out.

5. Facts as narrated in brief are that a proposal for O.T.S. was submitted by Pratima Singh, Chair Person with an application to Chief Manager, Bank of India Lohatia Branch, Varanasi; Bank of India accepted the O.T.S. proposal on certain conditions which are accepted by the applicants; A resolution was passed giving number of 4 Cheques No. 7405, 7406, 7407 and 7408 dated 30.11.2018, 30.12.2018, 30.01.2019 and 01.02.2019; Letter mentioning Cheque Nos. and dated were submitted before the Chief Manager by the Trust; Letter for renewal of O.T.S. by giving 4 new Cheques No. 7419, 7420, 7417 and 7418 dated 20.01.2019, 08.02.2019, 28.02.2019 and 25.03.2019 which was submitted before Zonal Manager; Letter for payment of dues under O.T.S. by giving 4 new Cheques nos. 7419, 7420, 7417, 7418 dated 20.01.2019, 08.02.2019, 28.02.2019 and 25.03.2019 which was submitted before Chief Manager; Cheque No.7406 for Rs. 100 Lacs was issued in the name of Bank of India; Return Memo was issued by Union Bank of India with remark ‘funds insufficient’ ; Legal Notice in respect of dishonor of Cheque No.7406 dated 30.12.2018 for Rs.100 Lac was allegedly given; Letter of Chief Manager cancelling O.T.S. proposal dated 14.07.2018 sanctioned on 19.11.2018; Complaint U/S 138 N.I. Act, was filed by Bank of India through Chief Manager which was registered as Criminal Complaint No.1860 of 2019 (old No. 1057 of 2019); statement of complainant, Chief Manager U/s 200 Cr.P.C. in the form of affidavit was recorded; the summoning order was never challenged before this Court.

6. The averments and complaint by the complainant will also not permit this Court to exercise jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. I am fortified in my view by the decision rendered in State of Telangana Vs. Habib Abdullah Jeelani and others, (2017) 2 SCC 799. There are serious allegations against the accused. Therefore it cannot be said that this is a case which requires to be entertained. The Court as per the contours of Section 482 Cr.P.C. cannot grant indirectly which cannot be granted directly. I am even fortified in my view by the decision rendered in Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Maharashtra AIR 2021 SC 1918.

7. At the stage the High Court is not justified in embarking upon an enquiry as to the probability, reliability or genuineness of the allegations made therein. Of course it has been pointed out in Bhajan Lal cases, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, an F.I.R. or a complaint may be quashed if the allegations made therein are so absurd and inheretently improbable that no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused but the High Court has not recorded such a finding, obviously because on the allegation in the F.I.R. it was not possible t