JUDGMENT : ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J. Heard the parties. 2. Though, notice has validly been served upon the opposite party no.2, yet no one turns up on behalf of the opposite party no.2 in spite of repeated calls. 3. This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure with a prayer to quash and set aside the entire criminal proceeding as well as the order taking cognizance dated 20.10.2023 in connection with Complaint Case No.11944 of 2023 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Ranchi whereby and where under the learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Ranchi has found prima facie case for the offences punishable under Section 138 of N.I. Act and has directed for issuance of summons inter alia against the petitioners. 4. The brief fact of the case is that the petitioners being the director of M/s Shree Gopi Ispat Pvt Ltd. were involved in financial decision making of the said company and as per their instructions, the co-accused Subir Kumar Sahu signed the cheque on behalf of the Shree Gopi Ispat Pvt. Ltd. for Rs.75 lakhs, drawn in favor of the complainant and the said cheque was dishonored because of the reason that payment was stopped by the drawer. The complainant issued legal notice to the petitioners also by speed post demanding the payment of the cheque amount and the notice was received by the petitioners on 16.08.2023 but as the petitioners did not pay the cheque amount, the complainant filed complaint case no.11944 of 2023. 5. It is admitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner no.1 was appointed as a director of the said Shree Gopi Ispat Pvt. Ltd. on 14.08.2020 at the age of 19 years and gave the power of attorney to the co- accused Subir Kumar Sahu. It is next submitted that the petitioner no.1 is not involved in day-to-day affairs of the company. It is next submitted that the petitioner no.2 was inducted as a director of Shree Gopi Ispat Pvt. Ltd. on 21.11.2022. It is lastly submitted that the prayer, as prayed for in the instant Cr.M.P, be allowed. 6. It is next submitted that the petitioner no.1 is not involved in day-to-day affairs of the company. It is next submitted that the petitioner no.2 was inducted as a director of Shree Gopi Ispat Pvt. Ltd. on 21.11.2022. It is lastly submitted that the prayer, as prayed for in the instant Cr.M.P, be allowed. 6. Learned Addl.P.P. appearing for the State on the other hand vehemently opposes the prayer of the petitioner made in the instant Cr.M.P and submits that the petitioner no.2 has made false averment in this Cr.M.P., that there is no averments as to the role of the petitioner no.2 in entire commercial transaction of sell and purchase of the coal that was done, but the fact that in para-5 of the complaint, it has been categorically mentioned that the cheque in question which was dishonored, was issued inter alia as per the instruction of both the petitioners of this case; which goes to show that they were actively involved in the financial decision making of the company concerned, including the decision to pay the admitted liability of the Company in respect of the coal transaction. It is then submitted that mere giving power of attorney to somebody, do not absolve the person who executes the power of attorney, of the criminal acts done by him or her. It is next submitted that it is the admitted case of the petitioners that the petitioners were the directors of the said company on the date of issuance of the cheque in question dated 15.04.2023 and there is specific allegation in the complaint that upon the petitioners being involved in the financial decision making of the company such cheque was issued, which was dishonored and though notice for demand of the cheque amount was received by the petitioners, but they have not responded to the same either by replying to the notice or by paying the cheque amount, so they are squarely responsible for the acts of the company and have also committed the offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I. Act, hence, it is submitted that at this nascent stage, the prayer for quashing the entire criminal proceeding against the petitioners ought not be allowed and this Cr.M.P., being without any merit, be dismissed. 7. 7. Having heard the rival submissions made at the Bar and after carefully going through the materials available in the record, it is pertinent to mention here that it is the admitted case of the petitioners that the petitioners were the directors of the company concerned Shree Gopi Ispat Pvt. Ltd. on the date of the issuance of the cheque concerned i.e. on 15.04.2023 and there is also direct and specific allegation in the complaint that the cheque concerned was issued for part discharge of the legal liability of the said company inter alia as per the instructions of both the petitioners; which goes to show that they were actively involved in the financial decision making of the company concerned. There is direct and specific allegation against the petitioners that the demand notice was issued to both the petitioners, calling upon them to pay the cheque amount. There is direct and specific allegation that they have received the notice which is sent by the speed post. The undisputed facts remains that they failed to pay the cheque amount. This court is of the considered view that there is sufficient material to constitute the offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I. Act as well, hence, this Court do not find any justifiable reason to accede to the prayer of the petitioners to quash the entire criminal proceeding, keeping in view the settled principle of law that the power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. cannot be exercised by the High Court to conduct a mini trial as has been reiterated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. vs. Akhil Sharda & Ors . reported in 2022 LiveLaw SC 594, the relevant portion of which reads as under:- “Having gone through the impugned judgment and order passed by the High court has set aside the criminal proceedings in exercise of powers under Section 482 CrPC, it appears that the High Court has virtually conducted a mini trial, which as such is not permissible at this stage and while deciding the application under Section 482CrPC. As observed and held by this court in a catena of decisions, no mini trial can be conducted by the High Court in exercise of power under Section 482CrPC, jurisdiction and at the stage of deciding the application under Section 482CrPC, the High Court cannot get into appreciation of evidence of the particular case being considering. (Emphasis supplied) 8. Under such circumstances, this Court do not find any merit in this Cr.M.P., hence, this Cr.M.P., being without any merit, is dismissed.