ORDER : This petition has been filed by the petitioners under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short “CrPC”) seeking quashment of the criminal proceedings arising out of complaint filed by the respondent herein being Complaint Case No.2455 of 2015 (Jai Prakash vs. Smt. Shobha Tripathi and another) pending in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Durg. 2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that respondent/complainant has filed a complaint case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short “NI Act”) against the petitioners herein before the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Durg alleging that Cheques bearing Nos. 771819 of Rs.4,50,000/-, 771820 of Rs.11,65,370/- and 771821 of Rs.11,00,000/-, issued by the petitioners herein in favour of M/s. Jyoti Enterprises of which respondent/complainant is proprietor, were dishonored when presented before the bank and same were returned unpaid due to stoppage of payment at drawer’s end. The petitioner No.01 i.e. Smt. Shobha Tripathi is sole proprietor of M/s. Arnav Industries and the petitioner No.02 i.e. Dev Prakash Tripathi is husband and also power of attorney holder of petitioner No.01. The petitioner No.02 is also in-charge and responsible for day to day business of the firm- M/s. Arnav Industries. Petitioners’ firm- M/s. Arnav Industries has also issued an authority letter (Annexure-A/5) in favour of the bank authorizing the petitioner No.02 to operate the bank accounts and lockers of the firm- M/s. Arnav Industries. Hence, implicating the present petitioners as accused, the complaint (Annexure-A/1) has been filed by the respondent. 3. Mr. Amiyakant Tiwari, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that as the aforesaid cheques were issued on behalf of the firm, namely, M/s. Arnav Industries and same were signed by the power of attorney holder i.e. petitioner No.02, therefore, without impleading the firm- M/s. Arnav Industries as party, the complaint filed by the respondent/complainant is not maintainable in view of Section 141 of the NI Act. By placing reliance on the judgment of Supreme Court in the matter of Aneeta Hada v. Godfather Travels and Tours Private Limited, (2012) 5 SCC 661 he submits that though in the present case the firm- M/s. Arnav Industries is a sole proprietorship firm, but ratio of Aneeta Hada (supra) is squarely applied in the present case. By placing reliance on the judgment of Supreme Court in the matter of Aneeta Hada v. Godfather Travels and Tours Private Limited, (2012) 5 SCC 661 he submits that though in the present case the firm- M/s. Arnav Industries is a sole proprietorship firm, but ratio of Aneeta Hada (supra) is squarely applied in the present case. He further submits that as the cheques in question were not in any manner signed by Smt. Shobha Tripathi (petitioner No.01), who is proprietor of the firm, therefore, she is not legally liable for dishonor of the said cheques. By placing reliance in the matter of P.J. Agro Tech Limited and others vs. Water Base Limited, (2010) 12 SCC 146 leaned counsel submits that Smt. Shobha Tripathi (petitioner No.01) is not the drawer of the said cheques, as such, she cannot be held guilty for offence under Section 138 of NI Act. 4. Mr. Amiyakant Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that vide letter dated 04th June, 2014 (Annexure-A/6) the petitioner No.02, on behalf of M/s. Arnav Industries, has informed the Chief Manager, Canara Bank, SME Branch, Bhilai to stop payment of the aforesaid cheques and has also informed the bank that said cheques were issued as a security, but due to some difficulty in negotiation the holder of the cheques is not entitled to collect the payment and, to the same effect, vide letter dated 10th June, 2014 (Annexure-A/7) the petitioner No.02 has duly intimated to the respondent-complainant’s firm and requested to return the said cheques and to take back the goods supplied by him as the goods which were supplied are of inferior quality. The said registered letter (Annexure-A/7) was duly received by the complainant’s firm on 11th June, 2014 and copy of acknowledgment alongwith postal receipt have been filed alongwith this petition in support of this contention. Mr. Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that though petitioners have sent all such intimation to complainant’s firm and to the bank in the month of June, 2014, but after a gap of more than 05 months, the complainant by misusing said cheques issued legal notice dated 14th November, 2014 under Section 138 of the NI Act to the petitioners, for which the petitioners have already intimated the respondent/complainant to return the aforesaid cheques in the month of June, 2014. Thus, it has been clearly revealed that cheques were undated and have been misused thereafter. He also placed reliance on Indus Airways Pvt. Ltd. and others vs. Magnum Aviation Pvt. Ltd. and another, (2014) 12 SCC 593 : 2014 (2) CGLJ 545 to bolster his submissions. Lastly, he emphasized that as the commercial transaction has not been completed, no legally enforceable liability or debt has arisen on the part of the petitioners. Hence, prayed for considering all these aspects and, in view thereof, the continuation of criminal proceedings against the petitioners amounts to abuse to the process of law therefore, in the interest of justice, the same deserves to be quashed. 5. Per-contra, Mr. T.K. Jha, learned counsel appearing for the respondent submits that as the cheques were given for the goods supplied to the petitioners, therefore, there is a legally enforceable liability or debt occurred on the part of the petitioners and, even if, the said cheques were given as a security, the said aspect has to be seen/ considered during the course of trial. Whether there was any outstanding liability or not on the part of the petitioners is a question of fact which could have been determined only and only by the trial Court after recording evidence of the parties and, as such, the disputed questions of fact cannot be considered or gone into by this Court in a petition filed under Section 482 of CrPC. He placed reliance on a decision rendered by the Supreme Court in the matter Sunil Todi and others vs. State of Gujarat and another, 2021 SCC Online SC 1174 : AIR 2022 SC 147 and has drawn attention of Para-29 of the said judgment, which reads as under : “29. The order of this Court in Womb Laboratories holds that the issue as to whether the cheuqes were given by way of security is a matter of defence. This line of reasoning in Womb Laboratories is on the same plane as the observations in HMT Watches, where it was held that whether a set of cheques has been given towards security or otherwise or whether there was an outstanding liability is a question of fact which has to be determined at the trial on the basis of evidence. This line of reasoning in Womb Laboratories is on the same plane as the observations in HMT Watches, where it was held that whether a set of cheques has been given towards security or otherwise or whether there was an outstanding liability is a question of fact which has to be determined at the trial on the basis of evidence. The rationale for this is that a disputed question of this nature cannot be resolved in proceedings under Section 482 CrPC, absent evidence to be recorded at the trial.” 6. Mr. T.K. Jha, learned counsel for the respondent further submits that in the instant case the cheques were issued by sole proprietorship firm- M/s. Arnav Industries and it is not in dispute that the petitioner No.01 is the sole proprietor of the said firm and she has executed power of attorney in the name of her husband i.e. petitioner No.02 to transact all banking transaction and, in the said capacity the petitioner No.02 has issued the cheques in question. Therefore, only on the basis that petitioner No.01 has not signed the cheques, she cannot escape from the criminal liability more particularly when it is well settled that a sole proprietorship firm has no separate legal identity and, in fact, it is a business name of the sole proprietor. Sole proprietorship firm would not fall within the ambit and scope of Section 141 of the NI Act, thus, there is no technical defect in the complaint filed by the respondent-complainant. Lastly, he submits that as there is no dispute that the cheques in question were issued by the petitioner No.02 under the authority of petitioner No.01, therefore, presumption under Section 139 of the NI Act is liable to be drawn in favour of the holder, as there is burden on the petitioners to disprove the fact that the cheques in question are not issued for any legal recoverable debt or liability. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties considered their rival submissions made herein above and went through the record with utmost circumspection. 8. It is not in dispute that M/s. Arnav Industries is a sole proprietorship firm and the petitioner No.01 is its sole proprietor and she has executed power of attorney in favour of the petitioner No.02 for transacting day to day business of the firm and also to transact the banking transaction. 8. It is not in dispute that M/s. Arnav Industries is a sole proprietorship firm and the petitioner No.01 is its sole proprietor and she has executed power of attorney in favour of the petitioner No.02 for transacting day to day business of the firm and also to transact the banking transaction. It is also not in dispute that the cheques for which complaint has been filed were drawn in the name of proprietorship firm concerned by the petitioner No.02. The contentions raised by learned counsel for the petitioners that as the goods, which were supplied in response to the purchase order of an oral agreement, were received to be of inferior quality, therefore, the bank was informed to stop payment and the complainant was requested to take back the said goods and return the said cheques and commercial transaction was not completed. No legally enforceable liability or debt occurred on the part of the petitioners, as cheques were issued in shape of advance payment and, as the goods were not accepted, there is no liability on the petitioners. In the matter of Sunil Todi (supra) their Lordships of Supreme Court discussed all such issues about issuance of cheques as a security and has also examined the ratio of Indus Airways Pvt. Ltd. (supra) and finally held that all such disputed questions of this nature cannot be resolved in a proceedings under Section 482 of CrPC. In this regard, the observations made in Para-29 of the judgment mentioned herein-above is significant. Further, in the instant case, the cheques in question have been issued by the sole proprietorship firm, therefore, the principle laid down in the matter of Aneeta Hada (supra) relating to applicability of Section 141 of the NI Act is clearly distinguishable and not applicable under the facts and circumstances of the present case. 9. In view of the aforesaid discussions, this Court does not find any substantial ground to interfere in the criminal proceedings i.e. complaint filed by the respondent against the petitioners before the Court of learned JMFC, Durg by invoking power vested under Section 482 of CrPC. Resultantly, this petition is liable to be and hereby dismissed. However, it is made clear that the observations made in this order are only to the extent of deciding the instant petition and this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case. Resultantly, this petition is liable to be and hereby dismissed. However, it is made clear that the observations made in this order are only to the extent of deciding the instant petition and this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case. The petitioners are at liberty to raise all such issues and grounds of their defence before the learned trial Court as available to them in accordance with law and the learned trial Court shall consider and decide the same without being influenced by the observations made in this order.