ORDER : (J. C. DOSHI, J.) 1. By this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short “the Code”), the applicant seeks quashing of the Criminal Case No.1475 of 2016 filed by the complainant pending in the Court of 2 nd Additional Judicial Magistrate, Gandhidham Kachchh and further proceedings arising thereof. 2. The brief facts of the case are as under : 2.1 It is case of the complainant that accused no.1 is sole proprietor of the business carried under the name and style of M/s.Rambabu Traders. Accused no.1 is husband of accused no.1 and has also been appointed as power of attorney holder of petitioner. The accused has entered into agreement with complainant to purchase iodized free flow salt. That complainant has supplied the cargo as per agreement and raise invoices time to time. The accused made part payment. For balance payment, the accused issued alleged cheque under the signature of accused no.2. That said cheque was deposited and same was returned due to insufficient funds. Thereafter, complainant issued legal notice and same was served but payment has not been made. Hence, complainant filed Criminal Case No.1475 of 2016. 3. Learned advocate Mr.Shah argued that cheque in question has not been signed by the petitioner, it is signed by accused no.2. He would submit that power of attorney which is alleged to have been brought to trial is not executed by the petitioner for the purpose of operating bank account and therefore, he submits that prosecution against petitioner under section 138 of NI Act is futile exercise and abuse of process of law and therefore, he submits to quash the complaint. 4. Per contra, learned advocate Mr.Smit Pandya for respondent no.2 would submit that the petitioner is sole proprietor of M/s.Rambabu Traders. The petitioner has authorized accused no.2 to sign the cheqe on behalf of the petitioner as Power of attorney. He would further submit that cheque in question is returned unpaid on the ground of insufficient funds and not on the ground that signature of account holder is not matching. He submits that the petitioner who has given power of attorney to accused no.2 has issued cheque which has returned unpaid and now the petitioner wants to get away from the aspect that she has not signed the questioned cheque. He submits that the petitioner who has given power of attorney to accused no.2 has issued cheque which has returned unpaid and now the petitioner wants to get away from the aspect that she has not signed the questioned cheque. Therefore, it is submitted that petition is bereft of merits and requires to be dismissed. 5. Learned APP supports the arguments canvassed by learned advocate Mr.Smit Pandya and objected to grant of relief prayed in this petition. 6. I have heard learned advocates for both sides and gone through record annexed with petition. What could be gathered from pleadings and record that according to complaint before the learned Trial Court, the petitioner is sole proprietor of business in the name and style of Ms/. Rambabu Traders. It is alleged that accused no.2 is husband of accused no.1 and has been appointed as power of attorney holder of petitioiner and purchased iodized free flow salt from complainant and time to time invoices were generated. Since the petitioner has not paid amount for iodized free flow salt, on demand accused issued cheque no.198553 dated 16.12.2015 drawn on the State Bank of India, Jadcherla for amount of Rs.96,07,113/-. The said cheque was deposited by the complainant in his own bank but returned unpaid on the reason of insufficient fund. Statutory notice was issued and ultimately since amount for cheque has not been paid back, Criminal Case was filed before the learned Trial Court. Learned Trial Court after taking cognizance issued process to both the accused. Case of the petitioner is limited to the aspect that she has not signed the cheque. Power of attorney which is claimed to be base for permitting accused no.2 to sign cheque on behalf of the petitioner does not authorize accused no.2 to sign cheque on behalf of the petitioner and therefore, no case is made out within premise of section 138 of NI Act. Let me refer section 138 of NI Act. "138. Power of attorney which is claimed to be base for permitting accused no.2 to sign cheque on behalf of the petitioner does not authorize accused no.2 to sign cheque on behalf of the petitioner and therefore, no case is made out within premise of section 138 of NI Act. Let me refer section 138 of NI Act. "138. Dishonour of cheque for insufficiency, etc., of funds in the account.— Where any cheque drawn by a person on an account maintained by him with a banker for payment of any amount of money to another person from out of that account for the discharge, in whole or in part, of any debt or other liability, is returned by the bank unpaid, either because of the amount of money standing to the credit of that account is insufficient to honour the cheque or that it exceeds the amount arranged to be paid from that account by an agreement made with that bank, such person shall be deemed to have committed an offence and shall, without prejudice to any other provisions of this Act, be punished with imprisonment for a term which may be extended to two years, or with fine which may extend to twice the amount of the cheque, or with both: Provided that nothing contained in this section shall apply unless— (a)the cheque has been presented to the bank within a period of six months from the date on which it is drawn or within the period of its validity, whichever is earlier; (b)the payee or the holder in due course of the cheque, as the case may be, makes a demand for the payment of the said amount of money by giving a notice in writing, to the drawer of the cheque, [within thirty days of the receipt of information by him from the bank regarding the return of the cheque as unpaid; and (c)the drawer of such cheque fails to make the payment of the said amount of money to the payee or, as the case may be, to the holder in due course of the cheque, within fifteen days of the receipt of the said notice. 6.1. 6.1. Plain reading of above provision indicates that any cheque drawn by a person on an account maintained by him with a banker for payment of any amount of money to another person from out of that account for the discharge, in whole or in part, of any debt or other liability, is returned by the bank unpaid, either because of the amount of money standing to the credit of that account is insufficient to honour the cheque or that it exceeds the amount arranged to be paid from that account by an agreement made with that bank, such person shall be deemed to have committed an offence. Provision to aforesaid provision indicates that section 138 of NI Act would not apply if cheque is not presented to the bank within period of six months from the date of on which it is drawn or within the period of its validity, whichever is earlier or no notice is issued as per section 138(b) demanding amount of cheque returned unpaid. 7. In the present case, it is not case of petitioner that she is not proprietor of M/s.Rambabu Traders. It is not even case of the petitioner that she is not drawer of the cheque and such cheque is not drawn from account, she has maintained with SBI, Jadcherla. Limited submission of learned advocate for the petitioner is that she being holder of bank account with SBI has not executed any power of attorney authorizing her husband to sign cheque. Cheque in question issued in favour of complainant is issued from account of M/s. Rambabu Traders. The petitioner is indisputably proprietor of Ms/ Rambabu Traders. Cheque is signed by accused no.2. Bank slip at Annexure C (Mark 3/4 before the learned Trial Court) has assigned the reason to return the cheque as "insufficient funds". It is significant to note that cheque is not returned for the reason that it is not signed by the petitioner but it is returned due to insufficient funds. Learned advocate for the petitioner mainly contended that no power of attorney has been executed by petitioner permitting accused no.2 to sign cheque on behalf of the petitioner. He has also pressed Annexure B in support of this argument, where, such power of attorney is permitting accused no.2 to sign on behalf of accused no.2. Learned advocate for the petitioner mainly contended that no power of attorney has been executed by petitioner permitting accused no.2 to sign cheque on behalf of the petitioner. He has also pressed Annexure B in support of this argument, where, such power of attorney is permitting accused no.2 to sign on behalf of accused no.2. Whether bank has been given specific instruction about signing cheque on behalf of petitioner or not, is question to be tried during trial. It cannot be determined in petition under section 482 of Cr.P.C. The Court in proceedings under section 482 of Cr.P.C. is not expected to hold mini trial. In the present case, status of petitioner being drawer is questioned. She is proprietor of M/s. Rambabu Traders. Prima facie what appears that there is business transaction between complainant and M/. Rambabu Traders. Cheque was issued towards outstanding liablity of M/s. Rambabu Traders to complainant. In this circumstances, prima facie case is made out against the petitioner. Merely because the petitioner has not signed questioned cheque would not take away liability of the petitioner envisaged under section 138 of NI Act and therefore, no case is made out to quash the complaint. 8. In case of M/s Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd Vs. State Maharashtra & Ors., reported in 2021 (19) SCC 401 , three-judge Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court has analyzed the precedent of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and culled out the relevant principles that govern the law on quashing of an FIR Section 482 of the CrPC. Over and above that, the scope and ambiguity of powers to be exercised under Section 482 of the CrPC has been elaborately dealt with and considered by this Court. The relevant observations made in the said decision are as under, "10. Over and above that, the scope and ambiguity of powers to be exercised under Section 482 of the CrPC has been elaborately dealt with and considered by this Court. The relevant observations made in the said decision are as under, "10. From the aforesaid decisions of this Court, right from the decision of the Privy Council in the case of Khawaja Nazir Ahmad (supra), the following principles of law emerge: i) Police has the statutory right and duty under the relevant provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure contained in Chapter XIV of the Code to investigate into cognizable offences; ii) Courts would not thwart any investigation into the cognizable offences; iii) However, in cases where no cognizable offence or offence of any kind is disclosed in the first information report the Court will not permit an investigation to go on; (iv) The power of quashing should be exercised sparingly with circumspection, in the 'rarest of rare cases'. (The rarest of rare cases standard in its application for quashing under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is not to be confused with the norm which has been formulated in the context of the death penalty, as explained previously by this Court); v) While examining an FIR/complaint, quashing of which is sought, the court cannot embark upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR/complaint; vi) Criminal proceedings ought not to be scuttled at the initial stage; vii) Quashing of a complaint/FIR should be an exception and a rarity than an ordinary rule; viii) Ordinarily, the courts are barred from usurping the jurisdiction of the police, since the two organs of the State operate in two specific spheres of activities. The inherent power of the court is, however, recognised to secure the ends of justice or prevent the above of the process by Section 482 Cr.P.C. ix) The functions of the judiciary and the police are complementary, not overlapping; x) Save in exceptional cases where non- interference would result in miscarriage of justice, the Court and the judicial process should not interfere at the stage of investigation of offences; xi) Extraordinary and inherent powers of the Court do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the Court to act according to its whims or caprice; xii) The first information report is not an encyclopaedia which must disclose all facts and details relating to the offence reported. Therefore, when the investigation by the police is in progress, the court should not go into the merits of the allegations in the FIR. Police must be permitted to complete the investigation. It would be premature to pronounce the conclusion based on hazy facts that the complaint/FIR does not deserve to be investigated or that it amounts to abuse of process of law. During or after investigation, if the investigating officer finds that there is no substance in the application made by the complainant, the investigating officer may file an appropriate report/summary before the learned Magistrate which may be considered by the learned Magistrate in accordance with the known procedure; Cr.P.C. is very wide, but conferment of wide power requires the court to be cautious. It casts an onerous and more diligent duty on the court; xiv) However, at the same time, the court, if it thinks fit, regard being had to the parameters of quashing and the self-restraint imposed by law, more particularly the parameters laid down by this Court in the cases of R.P. Kapur (supra) and Bhajan Lal (supra), has the jurisdiction to quash the FIR/ complaint; and xv) When a prayer for quashing the FIR is made by the alleged accused, the court when it exercises the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C., only has to consider whether or not the allegations in the FIR disclose the commission of a cognizable offence and is not required to consider on merits whether the allegations make out a cognizable offence or not and the court has to permit the investigating agency/police to investigate the allegations in the FIR." 9. For the reasons stated above, the petition being bereft of merits is accordingly, dismissed. Needless to state that learned Trial Court shall proceed in trial without being influenced by observations made herein-above.