JUDGMENT : A.P. Thaker, J. 1. By way of present application filed under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, the applicant seeks to quash and set aside the complaint being Criminal Case No. 18614 of 2017 pending before the learned 5th Additional Civil Judge and Chief Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Vadodara filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter be referred to as "the N.I. Act") and all incidental and consequential proceedings thereof. 2. Brief facts of the present case is that the complaint has been lodged by the complainant under Section 138 of the N.I. Act against the applicant alleging that the complainant was desired of purchasing the shop and for that, the applicant's father has told price at Rs. 30,00,000/- and, thereafter, the complainant has paid Rs. 24,00,000/- by piecemeal payment and when the deal was not finalized, he demanded back the said amount from them and for that, they have agreed to make the payment by notarizing document on 20.09.2016. It is alleged that thereafter, the applicant has demanded Rs. 1,00,000/- for necessary process fees for the loan purpose and, thereafter, he has given Rs. 1,00,000/- to them and thus, he was to get back Rs. 25,00,000/- from the accused, but they did not repay it. It is also alleged that thereafter, the accused have given cheque in the name of the firm which was objected by the complainant insisting that the cheque be given in his personal name, but they have stated that they have no other cheque and, therefore, it has been given in the name of the firm and it was for Rs. 10,00,000/- and he has put his signature. It is alleged that the accused's father has also issued cheque of Rs. 15,00,000/- of the State Bank of India dated 07.01.2017. It is further alleged that the cheque of Rs. 10,00,000/- returned back with an endorsement 'stop payment by the drawer' and, thereafter, after issuance of the notice, he has filed the complaint under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. 2.1. It is contended that the applicant has challenged the complaint on the ground that on various grounds. According to him, he has not committed any offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act and the complaint is an abuse of process of law and based on false and fabricated facts. 2.1. It is contended that the applicant has challenged the complaint on the ground that on various grounds. According to him, he has not committed any offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act and the complaint is an abuse of process of law and based on false and fabricated facts. He has contended that the cheque in question is in the name of 'Sai Catering Service' and the complainant does not produce any documentary evidence of the said firm and in absence of such documentary evidence, the complainant has no locus standi to file the complaint. 2.2. It is contended that he has replied to the notice dated 22.03.2017 and has admitted that the amount given by the complainant of Rs. 1,00,000/- by issuing cheque has been returned back through his father's account of State Bank of India and, thereafter, the father of the applicant has also repaid Rs. 25,000/- by cheque. It is contended that the applicant's father was need of money of Rs. 75,000/- and, therefore, in June 2016, the complainant has given the said amount to his father and at that time, he got two blank cheques for security purpose and, thereafter, the applicant has repaid earlier amount by three cheques. 2.3. It is contended that the complainant has illegally misused two blank cheques and he has filled up the amount from the account of the father of the applicant and initiated proceedings vide Criminal Case No. 18615 of 2017. It is contended that for the cheque of Rs. 10,00,000/-, the complainant initiated the present complaint against the present applicant. 2.4. According to him, since both the cheques were given as security purpose and were blank cheques, Section 138 of the N.I. Act would not be applicable. It is his contention that the cheques must be issued against the discharge in whole or in part of any debt. According to him, in the present case, there is no transaction, consideration or legally enforceable dues against the present applicant. He has contended that by agreement dated 20.09.2016, liability cannot be fasten on the applicant and the circumstance under which the said agreement was signed, is required to be considered. According to him, in the reply of the notice, the applicant has raised many grounds but those have not been denied or replied by the complainant. 2.5. He has contended that by agreement dated 20.09.2016, liability cannot be fasten on the applicant and the circumstance under which the said agreement was signed, is required to be considered. According to him, in the reply of the notice, the applicant has raised many grounds but those have not been denied or replied by the complainant. 2.5. It is contended that non-payment may be considered as breach of contract and for that, the complainant can file a civil suit for recovery of the same, but he has no right to recover the entire amount till the period of two years is over, as agreed in the agreement. 2.6. It is contended that the material alteration has been made by the complainant in the blank cheques and, therefore, under Section 87 of the N.I. Act, the negotiable instrument itself becomes void and it cannot be enforced. On all these grounds, it is submitted that the criminal complaint filed against the present applicant being Criminal Case No. 18614 of 2017 be quashed and set aside. 3. Heard Mr. Hasmukh Gurjar, learned advocate for the applicant, Mr. Arpit Patel, learned advocate for respondent No. 1 and Ms. Monali Bhatt, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent No. 2 at length. Perused the papers available on record. 4. Mr. Hasmukh Gurjar, learned advocate for the applicant has submitted the same facts which are narrated in the memo of application. While referring to the documentary evidence on record and the affidavit filed by the applicant separately, he has submitted that the cheques in question were blank cheques and the cheques have been written by somebody else and, therefore, there is alteration in the cheques and, therefore, under Section 87 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, it has become void. He has submitted that the cheques were issued in the name of the firm, whereas, the complaint has been lodged by the respondent No. 1 in his personal capacity without any material to show that he is a proprietor of the firm. While referring to the bank memo, he has submitted that it is only advise and it is not written memo. According to him, in absence of the memo of the bank, the complaint cannot be lodged. 4.1. While referring to the bank memo, he has submitted that it is only advise and it is not written memo. According to him, in absence of the memo of the bank, the complaint cannot be lodged. 4.1. While referring to the reply of the notice and other documents, he has submitted that the applicant has raised many factual aspects, which have been neither denied by the complainant nor have replied the same. He has submitted that in view of the agreement of repayment, the cheques could not have been presented before the expiry of the date of agreement and the entire complaint is premature. 4.2. He has also submitted that the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is completely raised on the documentary evidence and there must be existing debt, whereas, in the present case, there is no existing debt. It is also submitted that there was agreement to repay the amount by monthly installment of Rs. 15,000/-. He has submitted that no cheque number is mentioned in the agreement. According to him, the cheques are not for any existing debt or liability and it is co-extensive of debt and liability. It is submitted that no consideration was passed to the applicant and there is no business transaction between them. 4.3. While referring to the civil suit filed by the complainant, he has submitted that all facts suggest that with an ulterior motive, the present complaint has been filed. While referring to one letter from the bank, he has submitted that so-called cheques were never written by the accused and it was blank cheque and cheque number shown in passbook is leading to other transaction as per the passbook of the applicant. He has submitted that the alleged cheque has only signature of the accused and the contents written thereof is not of the accused. While relying upon the following decisions, he has prayed to quash and set aside the impugned complaint being Criminal Case No. 18614 of 2017 lodged against the applicant. 1. In the case of Milind Shripad Chandurkar Vs. Kalim M. Khan and another, reported in (2011) 4 SCC 275 ; 2. In the case of Shanku Concretes Pvt. Limited Vs. State of Gujarat, reported in 2000 (2) GLR 1705 ; 3. In the case of Indus Airways Pvt. Ltd. and others Vs. 1. In the case of Milind Shripad Chandurkar Vs. Kalim M. Khan and another, reported in (2011) 4 SCC 275 ; 2. In the case of Shanku Concretes Pvt. Limited Vs. State of Gujarat, reported in 2000 (2) GLR 1705 ; 3. In the case of Indus Airways Pvt. Ltd. and others Vs. Magnum Aviation Pvt. Ltd. and another, reported in (2014) 12 SCC 539 ; 4. In the case of Taramanidevi Purushottamdasji Mahota Vs. State of Gujarat and others, reported in 2014 (3) GLR 2611 ; 5. In the case of John K. Abraham Vs. Simon C. Abraham and another, reported in (2014) 2 SCC 236 ; 6. In the case of Bharatbhai K. Patel Vs. C.L. Verma and others, reported in 2002 (2) GLR 1713 ; 5. Per contra, Mr. Arpit Patel, learned advocate for respondent No. 1 has submitted that all the points raised by the applicant are question of facts, which need to be decided by leading evidence and the applicant can put forward his defence in the trial itself. According to him, considering the factual aspects of the case, there are disputed questions of fact and, therefore, the trial is required to be conducted. He has submitted that the impugned cheques issued for existing debt and the agreement is only for the purpose of collateral security. He has submitted that in the application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the disputed question of fact cannot be decided and, therefore, the present application may be dismissed. While referring to the complaint and documentary evidence, he has submitted that the ingredient of the offence has been made out and for different cheques, different complaints have been filed, however, in the present case, the accused has produced certain material, which relates to the other case, cannot be looked into. Regarding decisions cited at the bar, he has submitted that almost all decisions are pertaining to the particular facts of each case wherein the trial has been conducted and the accused were punished by the trial Court are in the appeal either by the High Court or by the Apex Court has set aside the order of the trial Court on the basis of the factual aspect of that particular case/s. According to him, the present application may be dismissed. 6. Per contra, Ms. 6. Per contra, Ms. Monali Bhatt, learned Additional Public Prosecutor has submitted that this is a dispute between the private parties and, therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the necessary order may be passed. 7. In the case of Shanku Concretes Pvt. Limited Vs. State of Gujarat (supra), this Court has held and observed in para-10 as under:- “10. Pursuing Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the part of the section, which is relevant for this matter is " for the discharge, in whole or in part, of any debt or other liability" the preexisting condition is, there must be the existence of any debt or any other liability, for which the cheque might have been issued and bounced. Reverting back to the facts of the case, it is an admitted case that the company i.e. the original accused No. 2 wanted to promote its production and, therefore, borrowed Rs. 15 lacs from the original complainant i.e. the present respondent No. 2. The Managing Director, at present absconding, original accused No. 2 on behalf of the company original accused No. 1, entered into an agreement, clearly binding himself and the company, to repay the amount within six months from the date of the execution of the agreement. It clearly appears that to ensure the due performance of the terms further accused No. 2 issued seven cheques of due dates to the complainant and necessary averments were also made in the agreement that for the due performance of the agreement i.e. repayment of the advances after the six months from the date of the agreement cheques are delivered. Some of the such cheques were bounced, for which the complaint is filed.” 8. In the case of Indus Airways Pvt. Ltd. and others Vs. Magnum Aviation Pvt. Ltd. (supra), the Apex Court has held and observed in paras-12 and 13 as under:- “12. The interpretation of the expression 'for discharge of any debt or other liability' occurring in Section 138 of the N.I. Act is significant and decisive of the matter. 13. The explanation appended to Section 138 explains the meaning of the expression 'debt or other liability' for the purpose of Section 138. This expression means a legally enforceable debt or other liability. Section 138 treats dishonoured cheque as an offence, if the cheque has been issued in discharge of any debt or other liability. 13. The explanation appended to Section 138 explains the meaning of the expression 'debt or other liability' for the purpose of Section 138. This expression means a legally enforceable debt or other liability. Section 138 treats dishonoured cheque as an offence, if the cheque has been issued in discharge of any debt or other liability. The explanation leaves no manner of doubt that to attract an offence under Section 138, there should be legally enforceable debt or other liability subsisting on the date of drawal of the cheque. In other words, drawal of the cheque in discharge of existing or past adjudicated liability is sine qua non for bringing an offence under Section 138. If a cheque is issued as an advance payment for purchase of the goods and for any reason purchase order is not carried to its logical conclusion either because of its cancellation or otherwise, and material or goods for which purchase other was placed is not supplied, in our considered view, the cheque cannot be held to have been drawn for an exiting debt or liability. The payment by cheque in the nature of advance payment indicates that at the time of drawal of cheque, there was no existing liability.” 9. In the case of Taramanidevi Purushottamdasji Mahota Vs. State of Gujarat (supra), this Court has held and observed in para-20 as under:- “20. Once it is conceded that facts and circumstance of the case dominates and play decisive role, then it would not be difficult to accept the myth of might of presumption under section 139 of the Act. At least in two ways, presumption becomes vulnerable to an attack by other side. One, fact may makes way for the accused and special facts or peculiar fact of the case may held back the operation of presumption or in peculiar facts of the case, the Court may look into the material brought on record by the accused in support of his say that cheque is not issued in discharge of any debt or liability. In order to prevent injustice, the Court may look into such material. In short, submission about rigours and all pervasive effect of presumption read with limitation of Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. is not possible to accept in the circumstances of the case.” 10. In the case of Bharatbhai K. Patel Vs. In order to prevent injustice, the Court may look into such material. In short, submission about rigours and all pervasive effect of presumption read with limitation of Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. is not possible to accept in the circumstances of the case.” 10. In the case of Bharatbhai K. Patel Vs. C.L. Verma (supra), this Court has held and observed in para-9 as under:- “An attempt to rebut legal presumption at initial stage of proceedings is not and cannot be barred but if such an attempt, if made, must be very well founded and above the convincing standard of preponderance of probabilities. The reply to statutory notice is a stage from where it can be shown that the allegations made are absurd, improbable malafide and no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground to proceed against the accused. In the present case, the petitioner has satisfactorily established the basic infirmity in the complaint and its maintainability. It is obligatory on the part of the accused to rebut the legal presumption but perusal of statement of Mr. C.L. Verma and the stand taken by the associates of Bharat Vijay Mills/Continental Textile Mills in civil litigation including Mr. C.L. Verma referred hereinabove, provides sufficient rebuttal at this stage. Normally, this Court is supposed to read the averments made in the complaint and at the initial stage of the proceedings, the High Court is not justified in entertaining and accepting the plea that there was no debt or liability. Defence plea cannot be entertained in quashing proceedings. But in the cases where the petitioner is able to show to the Court that there was no existing debt or liability at the time of presentation of the cheque for encashment on the basis of the conduct of the complainant or admissions made by the complainant that may be in other legal proceedings, then in such cases, the proceedings can be terminated and the accused should not be asked to face the trial till it concluded. So, this Court inclined to allow this petition as the petitioner has successfully rebutted the presumption at initial stage and has pointed out the basic infirmity as to maintainability of the proceedings.” 11. So, this Court inclined to allow this petition as the petitioner has successfully rebutted the presumption at initial stage and has pointed out the basic infirmity as to maintainability of the proceedings.” 11. Since other decisions relied upon by the learned advocate for the applicant are on the same line and with a view to avoid prolix, same are not referred to in detail. 12. It is settled law that for considering the petition under Section 482 of the Code, it is necessary to consider as to whether the allegations in the complaint prima facie make out a case or not and the Court is not to scrutinize the allegations for the purpose of deciding whether such allegations are likely to be upheld in trial. It is also well settled that though the High Court possesses inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code, these powers are meant to do real and substantial justice, for the administration of which alone it exists or to prevent abuse of the process of the court. The Supreme Court, time and again, has observed that extraordinary power should be exercised sparingly and with great care and caution. The High Court would be justified in exercising the said power when it is imperative to exercise the same in order to prevent injustice. 13. The High Court, in the exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, is required to examine whether the averments in the complaint constitute the ingredients necessary for an offence alleged under the Penal Code. If the averments taken on their face do not constitute the ingredients necessary for the offence, the criminal proceedings may be quashed under Section 482. A criminal proceeding can be quashed where the allegations made in the complaint do not disclose the commission of an offence under the Penal Code. The complaint must be examined as a whole, without evaluating the merits of the allegations. Though the law does not require that the complaint reproduce the legal ingredients of the offence verbatim, the complaint must contain the basic facts necessary for making out an offence under the Penal Code. 14. A court exercising its inherent jurisdiction must examine if on their face, the averments made in the complaint constitute the ingredients necessary for the offence. 15. 14. A court exercising its inherent jurisdiction must examine if on their face, the averments made in the complaint constitute the ingredients necessary for the offence. 15. Now considering the aforesaid legal provisions under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure coupled with the observations of this Court as well as the Apex Court regarding the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and on perusal of the material available on record, it transpires that after due verification and verifying the record, the learned Magistrate has issued summons to the present applicant. The grievance of the applicant is that the cheques were issued in the name of the firm and the present complainant has filed the complaint in his personal capacity. On perusal of the notice issued by the complainant to the present accused, it is clearly mentioned therein that he is proprietor of the firm. It also reveals that the notice has been replied by the accused raising various factual aspects. It is also the case of the applicant that the cheques were blank cheques and there were only the signature of the present accused. Now, on perusal of the defence put up by the applicant is that his father has also obtained certain amount on interest from the complainant and the same has been repaid and the other defence raised by the accused is that at the initial stage when the amount received from the complainant, he insisted for blank cheques and, therefore, the blank cheques were given to him after signing. Now, the question of writing on the cheques is concerned, the same is required to be proved or disproved on the evidence that may be led by both the sides. It also reveals from the material on record that the bank has returned back the cheques to the complainant with an endorsement of 'stop payment'. The applicant herein has heavily relied on the bank statement and passbook of his own account. However, whatever factual questions raised by the applicant are in a nature of defence to the complaint under Section 138(a) of the Negotiable Instruments Act. This is a case wherein the disputed questions of fact are involved. The applicant herein has heavily relied on the bank statement and passbook of his own account. However, whatever factual questions raised by the applicant are in a nature of defence to the complaint under Section 138(a) of the Negotiable Instruments Act. This is a case wherein the disputed questions of fact are involved. Under these circumstances, when there is disputed question of fact is involved and there is prima facie material showing that the cheques were issued by the accused to the complainant with his signature and there was monetary transaction between them, then in such case, inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure cannot be exercised. 16. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, it is clearly found that the applicant and his father issued different cheques to the complainant and accordingly, the complainant lodged different complaints and he has also initiated civil proceedings. This shows that there is prima facie liability of payment on the part of the applicant. In view of the material placed in the matter, it clearly appears that this is not a fit case wherein inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure could be exercised. 17. For the foregoing reasons, the present application is devoid of merits and is required to be dismissed. Accordingly, it is dismissed. Rule is discharged. Interim relief, if any, stands vacated forthwith.