Hon'ble MEHTA, J.—The present petition has been filed challenging the order dated 8.12.2008, passed by the learned Civil Judge, (Jr. Div.) and Judicial Magistrate, First Class. Tijara, District Alwar, whereby the cognizance was taken against the petitioners for the offence under Section 138 of N.I. Act and the order dated 30.3.2009, passed by the same court, whereby the application filed on behalf of the petitioners for dropping of the proceedings against them was rejected by the court below. 2. The notices were issued to the respondent-complainant and Mr. Rahul Tiwari has put in appearance on behalf of the respondent-complainant. This Court while considering the petition filed by the petitioners admitted the same on 22.5.2009 and stayed the proceedings of the trial court qua the petitioners. The respondent filed an application being I.A. No. 1416/2010 for vacation of the stay order dated 22.5.2009. The matter came up before this Court on 25.7.2011 and the same was adjourned to 8.8.2011. Ultimately the matter was called up on 9.8.2011, then both the counsel for the parties submitted that instead of deciding the application for vacation of stay order, the main petition itself should be heard and decided. In view thereof, the I.A. No. 1416/2010 has become redundant and the matter was finally heard with the consent of the counsel for the parties. 3. Assailing the order taking cognizance and the order whereby the application filed by the petitioners for dropping of the proceedings was rejected, the counsel for the petitioners has submitted that in this case, the complainant filed a complaint against the three accused-persons, namely R.K. Loom Pvt. Ltd., through Director Mr. Surendra Jindal, Mr. Surendra Jindal, Director R.K. Loom Pvt. Ltd. and Mr. Vinod Gandotra, Director R.K. Loom Pvt. Ltd. It is further submitted that it is the specific allegation of the complainant, vide para No. 5 of his complaint was that the cheques in question were issued by the accused No. 3, Mr. Vinod Gandotra himself and that too in his personal capacity and as such, the prosecution of the Company and the Director for the bouncing of the said cheques was impermissible. The copies of the cheques, which have bounced, have also been annexed to the petition. Vinod Gandotra himself and that too in his personal capacity and as such, the prosecution of the Company and the Director for the bouncing of the said cheques was impermissible. The copies of the cheques, which have bounced, have also been annexed to the petition. Thus, as per the counsel for the petitioners, in absence of any allegation as regards the petitioners being in any manner connected or concerned with the cheques in question, the prosecution of the petitioners was absolutely unwarranted. It has also been submitted that as per the Memorandum and Articles of Association of the Company M/s. R.K. Loom Pvt. Ltd., the only two Directors in the Company are Mr. Rahul Jindal and Mr. Kiran Jain. The petitioner No. 2 was not the Director of the said Company and as such the prosecution of the petitioners was unwarranted. The counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance on the decision of this High Court of M/s. Tata Finance Ltd. vs. J.S. Fourwheel Motors Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. (2002(2) WLC (Raj.) 434)and on the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Jugesh Sehgal vs. Shamsher Singh Gogi (2009) 14 SCC 683 = 2009(4) RLW 3506 (SC)) and Harshendra Kumar D. vs. Rebatilata Koley & Ors. (2011) 1 SCC (Cri.) 1139 = 2011(2) RLW 1724 (SC)). 4. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent-complainant has submitted that there is an allegation in the complaint that the transactions in question were entered on the inducement given by the petitioner No. 2 and as such, he too was guilty of the offence of conspiracy. 5. I have heard the counsel for the parties and considered the record annexed to the petitioner as well as the impugned orders. 6. From a bare perusal of the complete record, it becomes apparent that the cheques in question in relation to the bouncing whereof, the complaint has been filed were issued by the accused No. 3, Mr. Vinod Gandotra and that too in his individual capacity. 6. From a bare perusal of the complete record, it becomes apparent that the cheques in question in relation to the bouncing whereof, the complaint has been filed were issued by the accused No. 3, Mr. Vinod Gandotra and that too in his individual capacity. The relevant part of the complaint reads as below: ;g gS fd mDr vnk;xh ds e/;s eqyfte ua- 3 us feu ifjoknh dks vius TokbaV vdkmaV ls nks pSd vius gLrk{kjksa ls tkjh fd;s tks pSd la[;k 696599 o 696598 Øe'k% fnukad 20-6-2007 o 25-5-2007 ds Fks] tks izR;sd pSd 3]66]000@- #- ds FksA ftudk Hkqxrku ;wdks cSad 'kk[kk - Fkkelu izsl lSDVj 15,] Qfjnkckn ¼gfj;k.kk½ }kjk fd;k tkuk FkkA mDr nksuksa pSdksa ds tkjh djus dh tkudkjh eqyfte ua- 2 dks Hkh Fkh D;ksafd eqyfte ua- 2 dEiuh ds nSfud dk;ksZ dh tkudkjh j[krs gSaA 7. Though in the complaint, it has been mentioned that the cheques were issued from a joint account, but a bare perusal of the cheques reveals that the cheques have been issued from the individual account held by the accused, Mr. Vinod Gandotra. As such, the petitioners were neither the holders of the account form which the cheques in question issued, nor is their any allegation on the record of the case that the petitioners were in any manner connected with the account of Mr. Vinod Gandotra. As far as the allegation in the complaint regarding the participation of the petitioner No. 2 in conspiracy to cheat is concerned, suffice it to say that the trial Court was simply trying a case for the offence under Section 138 of N.I. Act and not a case of cheating. 8. In view of the above discussion, this Court is of the opinion that the complaint as regards the present petitioners are concerned does not disclose any offence sufficient to try them. Prima facie, there are no such allegations in the complaint or the documents in support of the account which can justify the continuance of the prosecution of the petitioners. 9. As such, the misc. petition succeeds and the complaint case No. 1048/2008 pending before the court of Civil Judge (Jr. Div.) and Judicial Magistrate, Tijara, District Alwar and all proceedings subsequent thereto sought to be taken against the petitioners are, hereby, quashed. 10. Accordingly, the misc. petition is, hereby, allowed. The stay petition also stands disposed of.