JUDGMENT Pankaj Bhandari, J. - Petitioner has preferred this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition aggrieved by order dated 06.11.2017 passed by Special Metropolitan Magistrate (N.I. Act Cases) No.10, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur, whereby Court dismissed the application under Section 227 Cr.P.C. filed by the petitioner and refused to exonerate from criminal case. 2. It is contended by counsel for the petitioner that the sale deed was executed between complainant and the company of which petitioner is an authorized signatory. 3. It is contended that the company was not impleaded as party and in absence of Company being a party, proceedings cannot be continued. 4. Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on " Aneeta Hada vs. M/s. Godfather Travels and Tours Pvt. Ltd., (2012) AIR SC 2795 " and " Anil Gupta vs. Star India Pvt. Ltd. and Anr., (2014) AIR SC 3078 ." 5. Counsel for the respondent has opposed the present Criminal Miscellaneous Petition. It is contended that petitioner was authorized signatory and his signatures are on the cheques. Cheques were issued when the sale deed was executed and details of cheques are mentioned in the sale deed. 6. Counsel for the respondent has placed reliance on " Rajesh Sharma and Anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan and Anr., (2017) 3 RLW 2376 (Raj.) ", wherein the Court set-aside the cognizance order. However, in the interest of justice gave liberty to the complainant to move the Competent Court having jurisdiction by filing an application under Section 14 of the Limitation Act, seeking exclusion of the period during which he was prosecuting the complaint against the accused petitioners alone while filing a fresh complaint, if so advised. 7. I have considered the contentions. 8. In view of the judgment of the Apex Court in "Aneeta Hada vs. M/s. Godfather Travels and Tours Pvt. Ltd." (supra) and "Anil Gupta vs. Star India Pvt. Ltd. and Anr." (supra), the law is well settled that where the offence is committed by the company or firm, company or firm is required to be impleaded as the accused, since, company and the firm were the drawer of cheques. 9. However, taking note of the fact that the complainant is an illiterate lady and rustic villager, quashing of complaint in toto would result in grave injustice to her, hence, placing reliance on "Rajesh Sharma and Anr. Vs. 9. However, taking note of the fact that the complainant is an illiterate lady and rustic villager, quashing of complaint in toto would result in grave injustice to her, hence, placing reliance on "Rajesh Sharma and Anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan and Anr." this Court also deems it proper to quash the proceedings as the proceedings have been initiated only against petitioner and company has not been impleaded as party. 10. In the interest of justice, this Court also deems it proper to grant liberty to the complainant to move the Competent Court having jurisdiction by filing an application under Section 14 of the Limitation Act, seeking exclusion of the period during which he was prosecuting the complaint against the accused petitioner alone while filing a fresh complaint, if so advised. 11. Consequently, the present Criminal Miscellaneous Petition is accordingly allowed. Stay application stands disposed.