JUDGMENT : MANISH CHOUDHURY, J. 1. The petitioner has instituted these four criminal petitions under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 [ BNSS ] seeking setting aside and quashing of criminal proceedings of four complaint cases, viz., [i] N.I. Case no. 6098/2023, [ii] N.I. Case no. 6100/2023, [iii] N.I. Case no. 6106/2023 and [iv] N.I. Case no. 6101/2023 which are presently pending before the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class [JMFC], Kamrup [M] at Guwahati [‘the Trial Court’, for short]. The afore-mentioned complaint cases have been filed by the respondent no. 2, a partnership firm, as the complainant alleging commission of the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, as amended. For the purpose of appreciation of the common issues raised in these four criminal petitions, the criminal petition, Criminal Petition no. 915/2024 is taken as the lead case and the facts narrated therein are taken into consideration only as other than the cheques involved therein there are no significant distinctions and differences in the facts involved. 2. In the complaint filed in N.I. Case no. 6098/2023, the respondent no. 2- complainant has arraigned M/s L.I. Steel, a proprietorship firm, as accused no. 1 and the petitioner herein as accused no. 2. In the other complaint cases also, M/s L.I. Steel and the petitioner have been arraigned as accused. In all the complaint, the accused no. 2 is shown as the proprietor of the accused no. 1 proprietorship firm, M/s L.I. Steel. 3. In the complaint of N.I. Case no. 6098/2023, it has been asserted that the complainant is a partnership firm registered under the Indian Partnership Act having its principal place of business at Guwahati, Assam and it deals in sale and purchase of cement. The complainant for the purpose of the proceedings is represented by its authorized representative. 3.1. It is further asserted that the accused no. 1, M/s L.I. Steel is a proprietorship firm having its principal place of business at Imphal East, Manipur and the accused no. 2 is the proprietor of the accused no. 1, proprietorship firm. The accused no. 2 is a resident of Imphal East, Manipur. It is stated that during the Financial Years : 2020-2021 to 2022-2023, the complainant supplied cement to the accused on credit basis to the extent of Rs. 36,47,39,907/-. 2 is the proprietor of the accused no. 1, proprietorship firm. The accused no. 2 is a resident of Imphal East, Manipur. It is stated that during the Financial Years : 2020-2021 to 2022-2023, the complainant supplied cement to the accused on credit basis to the extent of Rs. 36,47,39,907/-. Against the cement so supplied, the accused made payments from time to time and the complainant had acknowledged to have received an amount of Rs. 33,94,25,173/-. According to the complainant, an amount of Rs. 2,53,14,734/- remained outstanding and receivable by them from the accused towards purchase of cements. It is further stated that another amount of Rs. 2,63,59,236/- had accrued towards interest for delayed payment till 07.08.2023. The complainant had, thus, projected that a total amount of Rs. 5,16,73,970/- remained as outstanding and receivable from the accused. 3.2. The complainant has further stated that as part-payment towards Rs. 5,16,73,970/-, the accused issued a cheque bearing no. 884310 dated 22.08.2023 [the subject-matter of N.I. Case no. 6098/2023] for an amount of Rs. 50,00,000/- in favour of the complainant from an account maintained at Imphal Branch of the State Bank of India. 3.3. The complainant has further stated that on presentation of the above cheque at its banker - HDFC Bank, Guwahati, Zoo Road Branch for collection, the same was returned unpaid by the banker of the accused citing reason, ‘Account Closed’ and the complaint received the cheque return memo from its banker on 23.08.2023. On receipt of information of dishonour, the complainant through its lawyer sent a legal notice to both the accused on 02.09.2023 demanding payment of Rs. 50,00,000/- within fifteen days from the date of receipt of the legal notice. The complainant has further asserted that the legal notices were delivered to the accused on 09.09.2023 and 26.09.2023 respectively and in support of such claim, the complainant placed reliance in track consignment reports of India Post. 4. The accused, on receipt of the legal notices, sent two replies, both dated 16.09.2023. One reply has been sent by the petitioner and the other reply has been sent on behalf of M/s L.I. Steel. The stand taken in the said replies to the legal notice would be adverted to in the later part of this Order. 4. The accused, on receipt of the legal notices, sent two replies, both dated 16.09.2023. One reply has been sent by the petitioner and the other reply has been sent on behalf of M/s L.I. Steel. The stand taken in the said replies to the legal notice would be adverted to in the later part of this Order. The complainant has further asserted that when it did not receive the amount towards the dishonoured cheque even after waiting for fifteen days from the date of receipt of the legal notice by the accused it instituted the complaint before the Trial Court within the prescribed period. 5. I have heard Mr. S. Das, learned counsel for the petitioner; Mr. R.R. Kaushik, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent no. 1, State of Assam; and Mr. O.P. Bhati, learned counsel for the respondent no. 2-complainant. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondent no. 2- complainant have submitted that a nos. of litigations are pending between the parties in respect of nine nos. of cheques issued by the accused, which on presentation, stood dishonoured. 6.1. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the parties that the Trial Court in the four complaint cases, involved in these four criminal petitions, after taking cognizance on the complaints for the offence under Section 138 , N.I. Act, has issued process for appearance of the accused before it and on receipt of the process, the petitioner has instituted the present four criminal petitions seeking to invoke the inherent power of this Court under Section 528 , BNSS . 7. Mr. Das, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the Trial Court has erroneously taken cognizance in the complaint case without properly scrutinizing the factual aspects of the case. He has contended that the petitioner, Sri L. Jayananda Singh is not the proprietor of the accused no. 1 firm, M/s L.I. Steel. It is contended by him that the concept of vicarious liability in the case of proprietorship concern is not applicable since a proprietorship concern does not have a separate legal identity from its proprietor and therefore, the concept of vicarious liability contained in Section 141 of the N.I. Act cannot be made applicable in the case of the petitioner. It is contended by him that the concept of vicarious liability in the case of proprietorship concern is not applicable since a proprietorship concern does not have a separate legal identity from its proprietor and therefore, the concept of vicarious liability contained in Section 141 of the N.I. Act cannot be made applicable in the case of the petitioner. He has further contended that in case of proprietorship concern, only the proprietor can be held liable under Section 138 , N.I. Act. By referring to a Trade Licence no. 21/DC[IE]/2016 issued by the Office of the Deputy Commissioner, Imphal East District in the name of Laitongjam Inao Singh, he has contended that the said Trade Licence has been issued in the name of M/s L.I. Steel with Laitonjam Inao Singh as its proprietor on 26.04.2016 and since then, it is in the same name. Therefore, the petitioner cannot be arraigned as an accused in the complaint cases. It is the contention of the petitioner that he was only an authorized signatory on behalf of the proprietor of M/s L.I. Steel to issue cheques and therefore, the petitioner being not the proprietor of M/s L.I. Steel, cannot be arraigned as an accused. Contending so, Mr. Das has submitted that the criminal proceedings of these complaint cases are not sustainable against the petitioner. Mr. Das has also referred to a decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Bijoy Kumar Moni vs. Paresh Manna and another , reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3833. Mr. Das has strenuously contended that the petitioner was once authorized by the proprietor of M/s L.I. Steel to operate the concerned bank account, Account no. 31316195821 maintained by the firm at State Bank of India, Main Branch, MG Avenue, Imphal and it was the bank account wherefrom the cheques were issued. It is operated in the name of M/s L.I. Steel. He has placed reliance in a Power of Attorney executed by the proprietor of M/s L.I. Steel, Leitongjam Inao Singh on 10.01.2011 on a non- judicial stamp paper. He has further referred to another document annexed as Annexure-5 to the criminal petition to submit that by the said letter dated 01.02.2021, the petitioner resigned from his position of General Manager at M/s L.I. Steel effective from 01.02.2021 and the fact of resignation was accepted by the proprietor in writing on 08.02.2021. He has further referred to another document annexed as Annexure-5 to the criminal petition to submit that by the said letter dated 01.02.2021, the petitioner resigned from his position of General Manager at M/s L.I. Steel effective from 01.02.2021 and the fact of resignation was accepted by the proprietor in writing on 08.02.2021. Projecting as above, it is contended on behalf of the petitioner that at the time of issuance and dishonour of the cheques in question, was not related with M/s L.I. Steel as its proprietor and was not in charge of its affairs. Therefore, the petitioner is to be extricated out of the liability under Section 138 , N.I. Act. 8. Au contraire, Mr. Bhati, learned counsel appearing for the respondent no. 2-complainant has referred to the replies of both the accused, both dated 16.09.2023, sent in response to the legal notice dated 02.09.2023 to contend that in both the replies, the accused no. 1 and the accused no. 2 had admitted that the complainant firm and the accused no. 1 firm had business relationship for sale and purchase cement in the State of Manipur. The accused had further admitted regarding the position of the accused no. 1 firm as the buyer of cement from the complainant firm. He has further contended that in the replies, the accused had admitted about outstanding liabilities with a further reply that all the outstanding liabilities were cleared after issuance of the cheques in question. Mr. Bhati has further submitted that the accused did not refer to any document in support of their claim that they had cleared the entire outstanding liabilities. He has further contended that the documents whereupon the petitioner has placed reliance cannot be looked into in a petition filed under Section 528 , BNSS as the veracity, genuineness and evidentiary value of these documents are required to be gone into. But, those aspects cannot be gone into in these criminal petitions. He has further submitted that these documents are of doubtful nature and it is the Trial Court which will be in the best position to look into the veracity and acceptability of these documents. On the basis of the facts presented in the complaints, it is evidently clear that all the necessary compliance have been made by the respondent no. 2 as the complainant and as such, no interference is called for at this stage. On the basis of the facts presented in the complaints, it is evidently clear that all the necessary compliance have been made by the respondent no. 2 as the complainant and as such, no interference is called for at this stage. He has pointed out that the petitioner is incidentally the son of Sri Laitonjam Inao Singh and the document whereupon the petitioner has placed reliance are made in collusion and connivance of the father and the son. 9. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the materials brought on record by the two sides through their pleadings. The complaints filed in all the complaint cases including N.I. Case no. 6098/2023, are part of the case records. The cheques involved, the legal notices issued from the end of the respondent no. 2-complainant firm, and the replies of the accused, are all available on record. I have gone through the contents of the same. 10. The learned counsel for the parties are not in any disagreement on the point that they are not advancing submissions on the points of filing and institutions of the complaint cases; issuance of the cheques; presentation of the cheques for collection and consequent dishonour of the cheques on the ground mentioned in the cheque return memos; the legal notices issued by the respondent no. 2-complainant firm and their receipt thereof; the replies given by the accused to the legal notices; and the receipt of those legal replies by the respondent no. 2-complainant. 11. These four criminal petitioner have been filed in connection with the following four complaint cases :- Crl.Pet. No. Cheque No. Cheque Date N.I. Cases 1 Crl.Pet no. 915/2024 884310 22/08/2023 N.I. Case no. 6098/2023 2 Crl.Pet no. 922/2024 884309 18/08/2023 N.I. Case no. 6100/2023 3 Crl.Pet no. 990/2024 884312 28/08/2023 N.I. Case no. 6106/2023 4 Crl.Pet no. 991/2024 884307 16/08/2023 N.I. Case no. 6101/2023 12. From a plain reading of the cheques involved in these proceedings, it is evidently clear that the cheques which were issued, the drawer of the cheques has been shown as ‘M/s L.I. Steel Prop : L. Jayananda Singh’ and they bear the signatures of the petitioners. 13. The grounds urged for quashing and setting aside of these criminal proceedings of the complaint cases are clear from the submissions of Mr. Das, learned counsel for the petitioner, as noted above. 14. 13. The grounds urged for quashing and setting aside of these criminal proceedings of the complaint cases are clear from the submissions of Mr. Das, learned counsel for the petitioner, as noted above. 14. When the replies, dated 16.09.2023 - one given from end of the accused no. 1 firm, M/s L.I. Steel and the other given from the end of the petitioner - it can be noticed that the contentions raised therein are similar. At the cost of repetition, it can be stated that there was admission as regards existence of business relationship between the complainant firm and the accused no. 1 firm. The accused no. 1 firm was admittedly a purchaser of cement in the State of Manipur from the complainant firm, M/s Prag India. There was no whisper in either of the two replies that the petitioner herein had signed the cheques only in the capacity of an authorized signatory or General Manager of the accused no. 1 firm and not in the capacity of its proprietor. 15. The sheet-anchor for the petitioner to institute these criminal petitions is a Power of Attorney, annexed at Page 91 of Criminal Petition no. 915/2024, purportedly executed by the father of the petitioner. 16. It is a settled proposition that a proprietorship concern does not have any legal identity distinct from its proprietor. A proprietorship concern is only a business name and the real person is the proprietor. 17. The complainant has arraigned M/s L.I. Steel, the proprietorship firm, as accused no. 1 in each of the complaint cases. 18. The question raised herein is that the petitioner could not have been arraigned as the accused no. 2 in the complaints lodged by the complainant firm on the ground that he is merely an authorized signatory and not the proprietor of the accused no. 1 firm. On perusal of the cheques which were dishonoured, it is clearly evident that the petitioner has signed the cheques with the seal of the proprietor of M/s L.I. Steel. The petitioner is not denying his signatures appearing in the cheques. The signatures appearing in the cheques go to indicate that the petitioner has signed the cheques as the proprietor of M/s L.I. Steel. Thus, such contention of the petitioner is belied by the facts which can be clearly noticed from a bare look at the cheques under reference. 19. The petitioner is not denying his signatures appearing in the cheques. The signatures appearing in the cheques go to indicate that the petitioner has signed the cheques as the proprietor of M/s L.I. Steel. Thus, such contention of the petitioner is belied by the facts which can be clearly noticed from a bare look at the cheques under reference. 19. This Court in order to ascertain the contentions raised by the petitioner, told the learned counsel for the petitioner to show the original of the Power of Attorney wherein the petitioner has placed heavy reliance to institute the instant criminal petitions. On perusal of the original copy of the Power of Attorney, purportedly executed by Sri Laitonjam Inao Singh allegedly on 10.01.2021, the date of issuance of the non-judicial stamp paper is found missing. It is noticed that the non-judicial stamp paper had purportedly been issued by ‘GEN SECY., All Manipur Bar Assn.’. 20. The said unregistered Power of Attorney by no stretch is a public document, as defined under the provisions of Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023. 21. It is true that the amplitude of the inherent powers of this Court under Section 528 , BNSS , which are akin to Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [‘CrPC], are unlimited and the Court can make such order as may be necessary to secure the ends of justice or to prevent the abuse of the process of the Court. But, the parameters within which the inherent powers are to be exercised are well settled by a long line of decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India and of this Court. 22. The Power of Attorney purportedly executed by Sri Laitonjam Inao Singh is not part of the records of the complaint cases as the petitioner is yet to enter in defence in the complaint cases, and the same has been made part of these criminal petitions by the petitioner to invoke the inherent powers of the Court. 23. It is also well settled that ordinarily, defence material cannot be looked into by this Court while considering a petition under Section 528 , BNSS / Section 482 , CrPC. Yet, in some very rare and exceptional cases where the defence materials which are of sterling quality and unimpeachable character, can be looked into. 23. It is also well settled that ordinarily, defence material cannot be looked into by this Court while considering a petition under Section 528 , BNSS / Section 482 , CrPC. Yet, in some very rare and exceptional cases where the defence materials which are of sterling quality and unimpeachable character, can be looked into. But by no stretch, the document shown purportedly as the Power of Attorney, placed before the Court, to further the case of the petitioner falls in the category of documents having sterling quality and of unimpeachable character. The document evidently falls in the category of private documents. The matters of veracity, acceptability and evidentiary value of the said document can only be gone into by the Trial Court in the course of the proceedings of the complaint cases if such a plea is taken by the defence. The other documents which are relied upon are found to be issued on the basis of the purported Power of Attorney. Moreover, the other documents where the petitioner has relied upon are documents which are exchanged between private parties. 24. In the decision of Bijoy Kumar Moni [supra], relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner, one of the issues raised was whether the authorized signatory of a company falls within the ambit of the expression, ‘drawer ’. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has answered the question there. In the case in hand, no company is involved as the drawer of the cheques as the cheques were drawn on behalf of the sole proprietorship firm. Cleary, the concept of vicarious liability embedded in Section 141 of the N.I. Act is not involved in the complaint cases under reference and these four criminal petitions. In Bijoy Kumar Moni [supra], the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed that an authorised signatory acting on behalf of the principal cannot be said to be the ‘drawer’ of the cheque ‘on an account maintained by him with a banker’ under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. The background facts which led the Hon’ble Supreme Court to make the above observations are different from the background facts involved in this complaint case. 25. It is apposite to state that a reliance on a decision cannot be placed without discussion whether it is rendered in the same factual and legal background. 26. The background facts which led the Hon’ble Supreme Court to make the above observations are different from the background facts involved in this complaint case. 25. It is apposite to state that a reliance on a decision cannot be placed without discussion whether it is rendered in the same factual and legal background. 26. In the case in hand, the petitioner had issued the cheques as the proprietor of the accused no. 1 firm, which were dishonoured on presentation for collection, and nowhere in the cheque it is mentioned that he had signed the cheques in the capacity of an authorized signatory only. The fact whether the petitioner had signed those cheques either as an authorized signatory or as the proprietor of the accused no. 1 at the relevant time is a matter of evidence which cannot be gone into at this stage. It is only on the basis of evidence led during the course of the proceedings of the complaint cases, those issues can be held to be proved, not proved or disproved. 27. In view of the discussion made above and for the reasons assigned therein, this Court does not find any reason, much less good and sufficient reason, to invoke the inherent jurisdiction of this Court available under Section 528 , BNSS . Consequently, the criminal petitions are liable to be dismissed and it is accordingly ordered. 28. As the issues involved and raised in all the other three criminal petitions are similar, which position, has been accepted by the learned counsel for the parties, the same are not discussed for the sake of brevity.