JUDGMENT : SIDDHARTHA CHATTOPADHYAY, J. 1. Challenge in this revisional application is to the orders dated 09.08.2016 and 08.03.2017 passed by the learned Magistrate, whereby the cognizance was taken and process was issued. The present private opposite party has filed a complaint case before the learned C.M.M. being case No. CS/0103371 of 2016 against the accused persons and the present petitioner has been arraigned as accused No. 1 on the following allegations. According to the private opposite party in the year 2013 the accused No. 2 to 7, on behalf of the accused No. 1, gave a proposal to the opposite party No. 2 for transacting by way of bill discounting facility which was subsequently accepted by opposite party No. 2 in the year 2013 and in 2014 the opposite party No. 2 handed over some blank cheques as security so that in case of failure in payment through bill discounting facility, the petitioner after formal intimation, can realise the due upon filling up and placing those cheques with its banker. It is further alleged that bill discounting was duly signed by both parties with a credit period of 60 days and an additional grace period of 30 days. The complainant further stated in the said complaint that the credit limit for the said sum became Rs. 1,50,00,000 which was further extended to Rs. 2,30,00,000 and all the bill discounting was honoured within the stipulated time. The complainant alleged that accused persons (present petitioners) were requested to return all the security deposit cheques and without any evidentiary basis, alleged that the accused also stated that the cheques had already been destroyed. In the year 2004 there was substantial transaction between the parties and upon the happening of an event the complainant alleges that the accused No. 6, who transacted on behalf of the petitioner, assured to repay the claim within time. Ultimately, he miserably failed to do so and there was an adjustment that the claim was settled at Rs. 70,00,000. It was also allegedly agreed that out of Rs. 24,00,000 outstanding claim, they would make a payment of Rs. 4,00,000 immediately and the rest amount would be adjusted under various orders within next 6 months. In terms of the assurance of the accused persons (present petitioner) initially Rs. 8,00,000 was adjusted on various invoices. 70,00,000. It was also allegedly agreed that out of Rs. 24,00,000 outstanding claim, they would make a payment of Rs. 4,00,000 immediately and the rest amount would be adjusted under various orders within next 6 months. In terms of the assurance of the accused persons (present petitioner) initially Rs. 8,00,000 was adjusted on various invoices. It has been further alleged by the complainant that private opposite party on August 2, 2016 presented the cheques. The opposite party No. 2 was surprised to know that a high value cheque was dishonoured in its bank account. Upon enquiry the complainant alleges that the cheque bearing No. 515207 for Rs. 56,29,884 was presented for encashment without the knowledge of the present opposite party No. 2. According to the complainant, those cheques were entrusted to the petitioner No. 2 towards security and not as a debt. After filing of the complaint before the learned C.M.M. it was assigned to the Court of learned Metropolitan Magistrate of this Court at Calcutta. The said Court had examined opposite party No. 2 and another witness and thereafter directed for investigation by the officer-in-charge of Hare Street Police Station. After getting the said complaint, the officer-in-charge of Hare Street Police Station had issued notice to the present petitioner under section 41A of Cr.P.C. and they have replied in writing. In spite of that without considering their written reply, the O.C. Hare Street Police Station has submitted a report before the learned trial Court and the trial Court has issued process. Challenging that part, they have come before this Court. According to the present petitioner, the learned trial Court has failed to appreciate the position of criminal law and issued the process against them mechanically. Mere bald allegations in the complaint, which are completely bereft of evidence, learned trial court ought not to have issued the process. 2. By filing affidavit in opposition the private opposite party has admitted the cordial relationship and business transaction by and between them. They have taken a plea that post-dated cheques were issued as security which could not be utilized under any circumstances. They also mentioned that it was agreed that those cheques could only be utilized in case of failure in payment. They claimed that the present petitioners had intimated the private opposite party that the cheques of 2013 have been destroyed. They have taken a plea that post-dated cheques were issued as security which could not be utilized under any circumstances. They also mentioned that it was agreed that those cheques could only be utilized in case of failure in payment. They claimed that the present petitioners had intimated the private opposite party that the cheques of 2013 have been destroyed. They asserted that cheques were issued in connection with channel finance system as security. By filing an affidavit in reply the present petitioner contended that cheque in question was never handed over to the petitioner as security. They have drawn the attention of this Court referring para 10 of the petition of complaint wherein the private opposite party had admitted that there was never any dishonour and such practice of handing over security cheque was discontinued on consent of the accused company in March 2014. They have drawn the attention of Annexure P-16 and mentioned the same in paragraph 6 of their affidavit in reply. 3. After hearing rival submission of the parties along with the factual aspects it is admitted that there was business relationship by and between the parties. It is also admitted that the private opposite party No. 2 had issued a cheque, whether as security or in connection with a debt, is a matter to be considered by the learned trial court wherein the proceeding under section 138 of N.I. Act is pending. 4. After going through the report prepared by the police the learned Magistrate had accepted the same and held that there is a prima facie case under section 467/406/120B against all the accused. 5. Now, this Court is to consider whether the petitioner's prayer for quashing of proceedings is to be accepted or not. In support of their contention the petitioner has relied on the decision reported in 2008(4) CHN 401 in connection with Sunrise Sports India Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. v. State of West Bengal. On perusal of the same I find that the ratio laid down by a co-ordinate bench of this Court is such that alleged breach of promise does not constitute a criminal offence of cheating. To constitute a criminal offence of cheating a guilty intention at the threshold of the transaction is necessary and such guilty intention does not decipher, there can hardly be a criminal offence of cheating. To constitute a criminal offence of cheating a guilty intention at the threshold of the transaction is necessary and such guilty intention does not decipher, there can hardly be a criminal offence of cheating. It has been also held that presentation of cheques allegedly in violation of the agreement that the cheques would not be presented but merely be kept as a security deposit and would be returned to the complainant after the business transaction comes to an end, cannot give rise to an offence of cheating or criminal breach of trust. The petitioner also relied on the decision reported in Sunil Kumar v. Escorts Yamaha Motors Ltd. reported in (AIR) 2000 SC 27. The ratio laid down in that decision is such that if the necessary ingredients of the offence of cheating or criminal breach of trust have not been made out and on the other hand the attendant circumstances indicate that the F.I.R. was lodged to pre-empt the filing of the criminal case against the informant under section 138 of N.I. Act, no offence is made out. In this case admittedly the present petitioner had initiated a proceeding under section 138 of N.I. Act and when the private opposite party came to know about the bouncing of cheque they have lodged the complaint. Therefore, the said ratio is squarely applicable in this case. The petitioner also relied on a decision reported in connection with Mahindra and Mahindra Financial Services Ltd. and Anr. v. Rajib Dube (2009)1 SCC 706 . In the said ruling, relying on Bhajanlal case, the Hon'ble Apex Court reiterated that where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attendant with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is manifestly instituted with an ulterior motive for wrecking vengeance, the power under section 482 of Cr.P.C. should be invoked. The private opposite party relied on a decision reported in Suryalakshmi Cotton Mills Ltd. v. Rajvir Industries Ltd. & Ors. reported in (2008) 13 SCC 678 . The ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court is such that when blank cheque is issued to a person, who misappropriates the same or uses the same for a purpose for which the same was not issued, case under section 406 of I.P.C. is made out. reported in (2008) 13 SCC 678 . The ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court is such that when blank cheque is issued to a person, who misappropriates the same or uses the same for a purpose for which the same was not issued, case under section 406 of I.P.C. is made out. In the case in hand by filing affidavit in opposition the private opposite party stated that it was intimated to them by the present petitioner that the cheques of 2013 have been destroyed. The private opposite party failed to establish their such contention by furnishing any document. There are many other communications on record which had been filed by the private opposite party. Therefore, whether there was any assurance given by the present petitioner to them or not is not established. 6. Therefore, after going through the decisions as cited above by the respective parties, I find that the complaint lodged by private opposite party is just a counter blast and when he came to know about the bouncing of cheque he instantly proceeded with the petition of complaint only to create an impediment in the proceeding under section 138 of N.I. Act. In my humble view, no offence is made out in the petition of complaint and accordingly this revisional application stands allowed. The proceedings bearing No. CS/0103371 of 2016 stands quashed. C.R.A.N. being No. 2495 of 2017 is also disposed of. Let a copy of this order be sent to the learned Court below at once for information and taking necessary action. Urgent certified photocopy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance with all requisite formalities.