Judgment S.K.Chattopadhyaya, J. 1. Heard Mr. L. N. Das, learned counsel, for the petitioner and Mr. S. D. Sanjay, learned counsel, for the opposite party No. 2. 2. In this application the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 4-7-1998, by reason of which on a complaint petition filed by the opposite party No. 2, the learned Magistrate has taken cog-nizance of the offence under Sections 406, 409, 120-B of the IPC and Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act. 3. In the complaint petition it is alleged that the accused persons, particularly accused No. 2 Chairman and accused Director of M/s. Pertech Computer Limited and others accused persons, in order to promote the sales in Bihar wanted to appoint its distributors and for that purpose accused Nos. 2, 3, 4 along with other accused persons approached the complainant and induced him to accept their offer for appointment as distributors of the accused company. Further allegation is that the company represented in various ways and mean and asked for Rs. 50/- lacs as security deposit with the accused persons as a condition for appointment of distributors. The same accused also assured him that on security deposit of Rs. 50/- lacs they would also pay interest minimum Rs. 4/5 lacs per quarter. 4. The complainant had gone to Delhi with the accused persons to have a look of the office and factory of the accused persons at Okhla Industrial Estates, New Delhi. The Company had induced the complaint to hand over a draft of rupees five lacs on 26-2-1997 drawn on State Bank of India. Another draft of rupees fifteen lacs was handed over by the complainant on 3-3-1997 drawn on the same Bank. Both the drafts were sent to the accused persons through their authorised representative who had come to collect the draft from the office of the complainant. Subsequently the complainant, it is alleged, handed over a draft of Rs. 30/- lacs on 27-3-1997 drawn on State Bank of India and, as such, the agreement was entered into finally on 27-3-1997. 5. However, when till the month of April the complainant did not receive any consignment he became suspicious and wrote a letter on 19-4-1997 to the Company about the same. 30/- lacs on 27-3-1997 drawn on State Bank of India and, as such, the agreement was entered into finally on 27-3-1997. 5. However, when till the month of April the complainant did not receive any consignment he became suspicious and wrote a letter on 19-4-1997 to the Company about the same. On telephonic talk the complainant was informed by the accused persons that they were finalising the distribution policy and it would take some more time to complete the same and thereafter they shall commence the operation. However, the complainant, it is alleged, went on writing to the company but except assurance nothing concrete came into existence and ultimately the complainant, who realised the ill intention of the accused persons, vide letter dated 24-6-1997 wrote to the accused persons to refund the amount of deposit with interest and also commission for the first quarter etc. The letter was handed over by the complainant at Delhi but without any result. 6. The complainant waited for three months as meanwhile the accused persons handed over a draft of Rs. 3,95,404/- as interest of first quarter in part. By letter dated 3rd September, 1997, the complainant was informed by the Company through its General Manager that the Company was facing financial difficulties and, therefore, actual date of refund may slip from the stipulated date and informed that they would surely refund the money with interest by 31st December, 1997. However, the accused persons disclosed that they would pay interest of quarter ending September, 1997 by 31st October, 1997. 7. It is farther alleged that the accused persons handed over eight post dated cheques towards the refund of security deposit of Rs. 50/- lacs and commission thereon upto 20-1-1998. The accused persons assured that the cheques would be honoured as per the schedule and then only the complainant accepted the post dated cheques. The complainant alleged that when those cheques were deposited in the Bank they were returned to him with a note "Stop Payment". 8. With these allegations the complainant filed the complaint petition before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patna, mainly against the accused Nos. 1 to 6. So far the Chief Manager, State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur, who has been arrayed as accused No. 7 in the complaint petition, the following allegations have been made against him: That the complainant presented the aforesaid cheque of Rs. 12,50,000/- and of Rs. 1 to 6. So far the Chief Manager, State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur, who has been arrayed as accused No. 7 in the complaint petition, the following allegations have been made against him: That the complainant presented the aforesaid cheque of Rs. 12,50,000/- and of Rs. 6,154/- on the due date i.e., on 20-1-98 but the same were returned as dishonoured curiously enough with the note "Stop Payment" not only in the column of dishonour slip but on the body of the cheque also it was mentioned "Stop Payment" with big words clearly making the same unpresentable again which clearly goes to show that the accused persons manipulated the cheque in collusion and conspiracy with the banker also i.e., the Branch Manager and instead of mentioning the correct reason about the insufficient fund in order to evade the mischief of Section 138 of N.I. Act the accused persons entered into conspiracy with the Branch Manager of their banker, namely, State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur wherein wrong reason has been assigned by the banker and this is how the returned cheque has come back." 9. Mr. Das, learned counsel for the petitioner, has contended that from reading of the entire allegations made against the petitioner no case of cheating or misappropriation is made out and the learned Magistrate, without considering all these facts has taken cognizance mechanically. On the other hand. Mr. Sanjay, submits that though allegation as such do not make out a direct involvement of the petitioner but for two reasons it can be suspected that the petitioner helped the principle accused for committing the offence. Firsly, the petitioner being the Manager of the Bank, while returning the cheques by giving endorsement "stop payment" should have given the reasons as to why the said direction was given by the other accused. Whether there was sufficient amounts in the account of the accused or though there was sufficient amount but the cheques were being returned as per the directions of the account holder should have been disclosed by the petitioner. Secondly, learned counsel contends, by endorsing "Stop Payment" on the body of the cheques the petitioner has made the cheques unpresentable in future, which definitely shows his connivance with the main accused persons. 10. Secondly, learned counsel contends, by endorsing "Stop Payment" on the body of the cheques the petitioner has made the cheques unpresentable in future, which definitely shows his connivance with the main accused persons. 10. Learned counsel for the State on the other hand, has fairly submitted that when the account holder directs his banker to stop payment even after issuing any cheque to a person, the banker is bound to obey the directions of the account holder and, as such, he cannot be held responsible for non-payment of the cheques amount to the person in whose favour the cheque was given. 11. From the reading of the entire allegations made in the complaint petition it is clear that the complainant has made a grievance against the petitioner that being a Banker he has returned the cheque with a note "Stop Panyment". Except this there is nothing on record to show that the petitioner, being the Chief Manager of the concerned Bank, had any part of play for deceiving or, cheating the complainant. 12. The reasons for suspicion against the petitioner, as suggested by Mr. Sanjay, in my view, does not hold good. Even assuming that there was sufficient amounts in the account of the company but after issuing the cheques when the main accused persons i.e., the account holders directed the petitioner to stop payment, under the Banking Regulation the petitioner was bound to stop payment on the advice of the account holder. At this stage it was not incumbent for him to explain as to whether there was sufficient or insufficient amount in the account. So far making the cheques unpresentable, in my view, also cannot be a ground of suspicion. Once a cheque is returned on the advice of the account holder with endorsement "stop payment", unless the account holder further directs the banker to make payment of the same, the same cheque cannot be encashed. 13. It appears that the learned Magistrate has failed to make out a distinction between the offence alleged against the principal accused persons and that of against the petitioner, Chief Manager of the Bank. There is no question of any connivance with the main accused persons. So far as the petitioner is concerned, the allegations in paragraph 18 as quoted above in my view, do not make out any case against the petitioner. There is no question of any connivance with the main accused persons. So far as the petitioner is concerned, the allegations in paragraph 18 as quoted above in my view, do not make out any case against the petitioner. It is true that the High Court in exercising its power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure should not interfere with the order taking cognizance and quash the same at the threshold, but it is also well settled that if the High Court is satisfied from reading of the allegations made in the complaint petition that no case is made out against the accused, the High Court will quash the same because otherwise the same would be an abuse of process of court. 14. In the circumstances, in my view, the order taking cognizance as well as criminal proceeding against the petitioner, P. R. Kanther, Chief Manager, State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur cannot be allowed to continue and, as such, the order taking cognizance dated 4-7-1998 is quashed and the proceeding as only against him is quashed. 15. I may mention here that while quashing the order taking cognizcne and the proceeding against the petitioner, I have not applied my mind to the allegations made against other accused Nos. 1 to 6. Mr. Sanjay has informed the Court that so far as the criminal miscellaneous petition filed by the principal accused persons for impugning the order taking cognizance has already been dismissed by this Court