the said allegation is a matter to be considered on evidence that may be adduced during the course of the trial. The fact, however, remains that going by the allegations in the complaint, at the present stage, it is suffice to state that specific allegations have been made to the effect that A3 was also equally in-charge and responsible for the affairs of the company and therefore he addressed the letter to the complainant expressing willingness to pay the amount. It cannot therefore be said that simply because A3 has not signed the cheque, he cannot be held liable or responsible for the consequences of dishonour of the cheque issued by A2 on behalf of A1 company. The cheque was issued by the company and it was signed by A2 on behalf of the company, however, in pursuance of the letter addressed by A3 on 24.02.2006, intimating willingness to pay the amount due by way of instalments. It is further stated that in pursuance of the said letter, Rs.33,00,000/- were paid and towards part payment of the balance amount due, the cheques were issued. Under those circumstances, it is considered that there are absolutely no valid or sufficient grounds to quash further proceedings against the petitioner-A3 invoking the inherent powers of the Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
