JUDGMENT : Chander Bhusan Barowalia, J. All these petitions were taken up for hearing together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. 2. The present petitions have been maintained by the petitioner(s), under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, for directing the learned Court below to dispose of the complaint(s) of the complainant-petitioner(s) (hereinafter referred to as 'complainant') in a time bound manner. As per the petitioner(s), respondent No.1-Company duly incorporated, under the Companies Act and respondent No.2 (hereinafter referred to as 'accused persons') being Director of the same. The complainant(s) presented the cheque(s) before the Bank i.e. The Baghat Urban Cooperative Bank Limited, Solan, within the statutory period. Their Bank i.e. State Bank of India, Solan, vide memo, returned the cheque(s) as unpaid with a reason payment stopped by drawer "Joint Signatures Required". Respondent No.2, responsible for the day-to-day business of the Company and also for its management besides other activities more specifically for making sufficient arrangements in the Account of the Company, so that all the cheques those are issued on behalf of the Company are duly and properly encashed. Therefore, respondent No.2, being responsible day-to-day affairs, management and business of the Company signed, executed and delivered the cheque(s) duly complete in all respects that he will make proper arrangement of funds etc. for due and proper encashment of the said cheque(s). The complainant, therefore, believed him and accepted the said cheque(s). Respondent No.2, did not act with due diligence and remained negligent deliberately knowingfully well that he has issued the cheque(s) in favour of the complainant(s) and is legally liable to make the proper and sufficient arrangement for encashment of the cheque(s). Respondents No.1 and 2 are running various business under different trade names. As such, the petitioner(s) prays that specific directions be issued to the learned Court below to decide the matter within time bound manner. 3. Replies to the petition(s) have been filed and it has been averred that the respondent has not issued any cheque to the petitioner nor there was any alleged loan liability. The petitioner has forged the alleged cheque(s) with malafide intention to grab money from the respondents. The petitioners have misused the blank security cheques of the respondents despite the fact that no outstanding amount was due against the respondents. 4. Mr. The petitioner has forged the alleged cheque(s) with malafide intention to grab money from the respondents. The petitioners have misused the blank security cheques of the respondents despite the fact that no outstanding amount was due against the respondents. 4. Mr. Dalip K. Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner(s) has vehemently argued that since on day-to-day business of the complainant is dependant upon the circulation of the money, the learned Court below be directed to dispose of the matter at the earliest. On the other hand, Mr. P.S. Goverdhan, learned counsel appearing for the respondents has strenuously argued that the complainant may show a single adjournment unnecessarily taken by the respondents and as the learned Court below is already ceased of the matter and the complaints are dealt with in accordance with law and prays for dismissal of the petition. He has argued that the present petition is maintained by the petitioner(s) just to create pressure and nothing more. In rebuttal, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner(s) has argued that there is no harm, if the petitions are decided at the earliest in a time bound manner. 5. After hearing learned counsel appearing for the parties, this Court comes to the conclusion that since the complaints are pending before the learned Court below, there is no averments in the petition(s) that the learned Court below has unnecessarily adjourned the matter and only prayer is that the learned Court below will try to dispose of the complaints of the complainant at the earliest possible. This Court also finds that the learned Court below is already ceased of the matter and if there is any prayer for adjournment, the request is required to be made to the learned Court below not to adjourn the matter, whenever, such prayer is made by other party. 6. In these circumstances, no order is required to be passed in the petition(s) except that the learned Court below will try to dispose of the petition(s) without giving unnecessary adjournments to any of the parties and taking into consideration the calendar of the Court. Ordered accordingly. Parties through their learned counsel are directed to appear before the learned Court below on 6th November, 2019. 7. In view of the above, the present petitions stand disposed of, in the aforesaid terms. Pending application(s), if any, also stand(s) disposed of.