JUDGMENT : H.P. Sandesh, J. Heard the petitioners' counsel and also the counsel appearing for the respondent. 2. The petitioners invoking Section 482 of Cr.P.C. prayed this Court to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.1847/2013 which is pending on the file of JMFC-I Court, Hubballi for the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act (for short, N.I. Act) and grant such other relief as deems fit in the circumstances of the case. 3. The factual matrix of the case is that the complainant, who filed the complaint invoking Section 200 of Cr.P.C. arraying the petitioner No.1-Company as well as other six persons as accused contended that the complainant is the Partnership Firm and Sri.Santosh, who is the complainant is one of the partner and another Sri.Pavan S/o Manjunath Prabhu is also the partner of the said Firm. The accused No.1 is a private limited company and accused Nos.2 to 6 are the Directors of the said company and are actively participating in the business of the Company. It is further contended that accused No.1-Company and the complainant have entered into a written agreement dated 14.08.2012 in respect of supply and distribution of specific products belonging to accused No.1 as C&FA. As per the agreement the duties of C&FA is to carry and forward the stock provided by the company to the dealers. As per Clause 3 of the above said agreement C&FA has to deposit Rs.3 lakhs with accused No.1. That the accused shall pay interest on security deposit at 12% p.a. and accordingly the complainant has deposited an amount of Rs.3 lakhs with accused No.1 and signed the agreement dated 14.08.2012. On behalf of the accused No.1-Company one of its Director authorized by the Company has signed the agreement. 4. The other contention of the complainant in the complaint that business transactions were not properly conducted by the accused No.1 and hence the complainant was not happy with the mode of the business conducted by the accused No.1. Therefore, complainant issued notice dated 16.11.2012 and communicated that he is not interested to continue the business and tender his resignation. By issuing such letter dated 16.11.2012 complainant requested the accused to terminate the agreement dated 14.08.2012 between them and to refund the deposit of Rs.30 lakhs at the earliest. Therefore, complainant issued notice dated 16.11.2012 and communicated that he is not interested to continue the business and tender his resignation. By issuing such letter dated 16.11.2012 complainant requested the accused to terminate the agreement dated 14.08.2012 between them and to refund the deposit of Rs.30 lakhs at the earliest. After the receipt of the notice, agreement was terminated and issued a cheque of Rs.30 lakhs dated 21.02.2013 and when the said cheque was presented, the same returned with an endorsement 'insufficient funds' and hence notice was issued on 04.06.2013 and the same was served on accused No.5 and so also accused No.2 and for other accused persons it was returned with an endorsement 'not claimed' and hence the proceedings initiated against the accused persons and the Court below has taken the cognizance against the accused Nos.1 to 6. 5. The petitioners, who are all accused persons Nos.1 to 8 are before this Court contending that there is no any averment with regard to the role of each of the accused persons in the complaint. The other contention that the drawers of the cheque have not been made as parties to the proceedings while filing the complaint. The other contention that the petitioner Nos.2 to 6 are not the Directors of the Company when the offence is said to have taken place contending that the cheque was dishonored on 21.05.2013 and petitioner Nos.2 to 6 have resigned on 4th March, 2013. The other ground is the complainant is a PA holder and got marked the power of attorney before the Court below and the same is not a genuine document and the Firm has not authorized him to prosecute the matter and hence the proceedings has to be quashed. 6. The petitioners' counsel in his argument also he reiterated the grounds urged in the petition and in support of his contention he relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in the case of N.Harihara Krishnan Vs. J.Thomas, (2017) AIR SC 4125 and brought to my notice para No.24 of the judgment regarding unless the complaint contains all the necessary factual allegations constituting each of the ingredients of the offence under Section 138, the Court cannot take cognizance of the offence. Disclosure of the name of the person drawing the cheque is one of the factual allegations which a complaint is required to contain. Disclosure of the name of the person drawing the cheque is one of the factual allegations which a complaint is required to contain. Otherwise in the absence of any authority of law to investigate the offence under Section 138, there would be no person against whom a Court can proceed. There cannot be a prosecution without an accused. The offence under section 138 is person specific. The counsel relying upon this judgment, he contends that the drawers of the cheque have not been made as parties to the complaint at the initial stage and hence the complaint also has to be quashed on this ground also. 7. Per contra, the counsel appearing for the respondent in his argument, he contends that before initiating the proceedings, notice was issued against the accused persons and the same was served on them and thereafter when they did not pay the amount and comply the demand of notice, the present complaint is filed before the Court. The Court below has taken the cognizance on 03.08.2013 and after taking the cognizance, an application was also filed before the Court below in 2015 itself to array accused Nos.7 and 8 as they are necessary parties on the ground that they are the drawers of the cheque and the application also came to be allowed in 2015 itself. The petitioners have approached this Court by filing this petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. in 2018 after five years of taking the cognizance and also contends that the order passed on the application filed under Section 319 of Cr.P.C. is not challenged. Further, he contends that 313 statement is also recorded and the petitioners have not cross-examined the witnesses before the Court below and now the case is set down for arguments and at this belated stage the petitioners have come up before this Court seeking an order of quashing of the proceedings. 8. The counsel appearing for the respondent in support of his contention also he referred the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in the case of State of M.P. Vs. 8. The counsel appearing for the respondent in support of his contention also he referred the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in the case of State of M.P. Vs. Awadh Kishore Gupta and Others, (2004) 1 SCC 691 and contends that under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., annexures to the petitions cannot be termed as evidence without being tested and proved and hence the Court should not act upon by invoking Section 482 of Cr.P.C. and hence prayed to dismiss the petition which is filed belatedly. 9. Having heard the arguments of the petitioners' counsel and the counsel appearing for the respondent and also on perusal of the material annexed to the petition, this Court has to examine whether this Court can exercise powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings as sought. 10. In keeping the contentions of the petitioners' counsel and the respondent's counsel, this Court has to examine whether the contention of the petitioners' counsel can be accepted with regard to the quashing of the proceedings. The first ground contended by the petitioners' counsel that there is no averment with regard to the role of each of the accused persons in the complaint. The counsel brought to my notice para No.4 of the complaint contending that no averments made in the complaint and only averment made in para No.4 is accused received the notice dated 16.11.2012 thereby terminated the agreement and issued cheque for Rs.30 lakhs and except that no such averment with regard to any role of each of the accused. On perusal of para No.1 of the complaint, the complainant has specifically stated that the accused No.1 is a private limited company registered under the provisions of Company Act and further pleaded that accused Nos.2 to 6 are the Directors of the said Company and are actively participating in the business of the Company and hence the first ground of the petitioners' counsel in the petition that there is no any averment with regard to the role of each of the accused cannot be accepted and the very complaint is specific with regard to their designation and also it is specific that they are actively participating in the business of the Company and hence I do not find any reasons to entertain the first ground urged by the petitioners' counsel. 11. 11. The second ground urged by the petitioners' counsel is the drawers of the cheque have not been arrayed as parties to the complaint originally. On perusal of Annexure-A, the complainant has not made the accused Nos.7 and 8 as parties to the proceedings and Annexure which is produced before the Court as Annexure-D discloses that an application was filed under Section 319 of Cr.P.C. on 10.04.2015 and objection was also filed as per Annexure-E by the accused Nos.2 to 4 and 6 and admittedly the said application was allowed in 2015 itself and allowing of the said application has not been challenged before this Court or in any other forum and the order has attained its finality and hence it is clear that the drawers of the cheque also have been arrayed as parties to the proceedings and no doubt at the time of filing the complaint they were not made as parties to the proceedings and subsequently an application was filed and they have been made as parties to the proceedings and the order has attained its finality and hence the second ground urged by the petitioners' counsel also holds no water. 12. The other ground urged by the petitioners' counsel in his argument that petitioner Nos.2 to 6 are not the Directors of the Company when the offence is said to have been taken place. The petitioners are not disputing the fact that when the cheque was given to the Company on 21.02.2013 they were the directors and also when the agreement was entered into between the complainant and when the agreement was terminated on 16.11.2012 also they were the Directors. Only contention raised by the petitioners that they were resigned from directorship on 4th March, 2013 and not the Directors at the time of bouncing of cheque. Only contention raised by the petitioners that they were resigned from directorship on 4th March, 2013 and not the Directors at the time of bouncing of cheque. The allegation is that all of them participating in the affairs of the Company as Directors and also the part of the transactions and also issuance of cheque dated 21.02.2013 and they were the Directors at the time of issuance of the cheque and whether they were the Directors or not and when they have resigned, all these aspects also has to be tested before the trial and this Court by exercising powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. consider the defences raised by the petitioners and the same is a question of fact and the same has to be adjudicated in the Court below and hence the said ground also cannot be considered in the proceedings under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. 13. The other ground urged by the petitioners that the complainant is a PA holder and he relied upon the document of power of attorney which is marked as Ex.P.17 and the counsel brought to my notice that the document which is marked as Annexure-F is dated 17th September, 2014 and it is the date of borrowing of the stamp paper and the execution of the document is dated 3rd July, 2013 and the document was notarized on 17th October, 2014 and in this proceedings also with regard to the validity and the genuineness of the document and other contention that the Firm has not issued any such authorization is also a question of fact and the same has to be tested in trial only and the sad contention cannot be accepted. 14. 14. The counsel appearing for the respondent relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the judgment in the case of State of M.P. (supra) wherein it is held that annexures to the petitions under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. cannot be termed as evidence without being tested and proved and hence the Court should not act upon the said annexures and the judgment is aptly applicable to the case on hand and I have already pointed that the genuineness of the document and also whether the persons who gave the power of attorney is by the Firm or not also has to be subject to the proof and also the same has to be tested in trial only and all these contentions cannot be raised in a petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. and the scope of Section 482 of Cr.P.C. is very limited. It is not a rule and the same is an exception and exception is also has to be exercised sparingly not the defences which are raised in 482 proceedings and only to examine whether it is an abuse of process or miscarriage of justice. Only if the Court comes to the conclusion that prima facie it is nothing but an abuse of process and miscarriage of justice, then the Court can exercise powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. or otherwise the Court cannot conduct a mini trial while exercising powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. The defence has to be raised before the trial Court only and not in the proceedings under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. 15. The main contention of the petitioners' counsel also with regard to the principles laid down in the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court with regard to para No.24 of the judgment in the case of N.Harihara Krishnan referred supra and contended that unless the complaint contains all the necessary factual allegations constituting each of the ingredients of the offence under Section 138, the Court cannot take cognizance of the offence. I have already pointed out that in para No.1 of the complaint the complainant has specifically stated with regard to the status of the accused persons and also it is categorically mentioned in the complaint that they were actively participating in the affairs of the Company and also in the pleading of the complaint itself it is specifically mentioned that after the issuance of the cheque the same was presented and the same was dishonored and thereafter legal notice was issued and the same was served and afterwards only the proceedings has been initiated and hence the said contention cannot be accepted and the principles laid down in the judgment is not applicable to the case on hand. 16. Regarding the other precedent of the Hon'ble Apex Court that disclosure of the name of the person drawing the cheque is one of the factual allegations which a complaint is required to contain. Otherwise in the absence of any authority of law to investigate the offence under Section 138, there would be no person against whom a Court can proceed. Here in this case also, it has to be noted that the petitioners have participated in the proceedings from 2013 to 2018 and they were also objected an application filed under Section 319 of Cr.P.C. and the same was allowed after giving an opportunity to both the parties and these petitioners have raised an objection before the Court below making the accused Nos.7 and 8 as parties to the proceedings and the same has been considered on merits and the same has not been questioned before this Court and the order of the Court below has attained its finality and hence the other contention also does not survive for consideration. The judgment which the petitioners' counsel has relied upon is also not applicable to the facts of the case on hand since the petitioners have participated in the proceedings from 2013 to 2018 and the matter is also set down for arguments on merits and trial has been already completed. The judgment which the petitioners' counsel has relied upon is also not applicable to the facts of the case on hand since the petitioners have participated in the proceedings from 2013 to 2018 and the matter is also set down for arguments on merits and trial has been already completed. Even though the trial was completed earlier, the petitioners have suppressed the truth before the Court and stated in the petition that the trial yet to commence and the matter is now posted for trial and this petition is filed on 30th July 2018 and it is nothing but suppressing of the truth before this Court while invoking Section 482 of Cr.P.C. and on that ground also the petitioners are not entitled for the relief as sought before this Court. The very approach by the petitioners is nothing but suppressing of the truth before this Court and making the statement that the matter is now posted for trial in spite of the trial is commenced and the 313 statement is also recorded and the stage of the matter is almost in the verge of disposal. Hence, the petition is devoid of merits and the same is liable to be dismissed with cost. 17. With regard to imposing of cost is concerned, for having taken note of the material on record and also the specific averment in the petition that now the matter is set down for trial is nothing but suppression of truth before this Court and also this Court has to take note of the conduct of the petitioners before the Court and throughout under the proceedings from 2013 to 2018 participated in the proceedings and the petitioners have approached this Court in 2018 that too when the matter is set down for arguments on merits even after recording the 313 statement, but mentioned in the petition that now the matter is posted for trial, it is nothing but an abuse of process of this Court and hence the petitioners are liable to pay the cost and hence imposition of cost is warranted. 18. In view of the above discussions, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER The petition is dismissed with costs of Rs.5,000/-. The payment of cost of Rs.5,000/- in favour of the complainant is precondition to participate in the lower Court proceedings. 18. In view of the above discussions, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER The petition is dismissed with costs of Rs.5,000/-. The payment of cost of Rs.5,000/- in favour of the complainant is precondition to participate in the lower Court proceedings. In view of dismissal of the main petition, pending interlocutory applications, if any do not survive for consideration and hence the same are also disposed of.