NAHE E D ARA MOONIS,J. - (1.) HEARD , the learned counsel for the applicants, the learned AGA for the State and perused the record.
(2.) THE instant application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicants with a prayer to quash the entire criminal proceedings case no.5460 of 2010, Jagdish Kumar Sood Vs. Kabir Mool Chandani & another, whereby the applicants have been summoned under Section 138 N. I. Act, P.S. Chhatta, District Agra, pending before the court of learned Additional Judicial Magistrate, Court No. IX, Agra. The opposite party no.2 had purchased AKAI branded television from M/s. Vairan International Limited, Tolstoy Road, New Delhi of which the applicants are the authorised signatories/directors related with the affairs of the company. A scheme was launched by the company that on the purchase of AKAI television of 29 inches a post dated cheque would be given by the company. In pursuance of the advertisement the opposite party no.2 had purchased a television on 5.7.1998 of Rs.28, 850/- and the company had given the receipt thereof and a post dated cheque no.585061 dated 5.6.2004 of Rs.30, 000/- was given to the opposite party no.2 by the authorised signatory of the company. When the said cheque was deposited with in the statutory period in the bank it was dishonoured with the endorsement that account closed on 10.9.2004. The complainant had given a legal notice on 16.9.2004 which was duly received by the company, but neither any reply was given nor the money was returned and as such the complaint was filed on 24.11.2004 that they may be prosecuted under Section 138 N. I. Act and under Section 420 IPC. The court below had taken the notice of the affidavit filed by the complainant and the cheque, cash memo and the postal receipts and on the basis of which prima facie arrived at the conclusion that the applicants have committed an offence under Section 138 N. I. Act and thereafter issued summons to appear before the court on 21.2.2005.
(3.) IT is contended by the learned counsel for the applicants that they have nothing to do with the business as well as they were not aware about any such advertisement of the company nor they had issued any cheque to the opposite party no.2. The entire allegations are absolutely vague and concocted. In support of his contention supplementary affidavit annexing a copy of the alleged cheque has been filed showing that the cheque does not bear their signatures and as such the prosecution of applicants is absolutely illegal. The applicants have no knowledge about the issuance of bailable and non bailable warrants.;