( 1 ) ALL these petitions have been filed invoking inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code ( the Code for brevity) seeking to quash the criminal complaints filed against the petitioners herein in C. C. Nos. 554/99 and 548/99 on the file of the XVI Metropolitan Magistrate Hyderabad.

( 2 ) THE petitioner is the same in Criminal Petition Nos. 4452 and 4453 of 2000 although the petitioner in 4455 of 2000 is different. The first respondent in all these petitions is the same being the complainant, who filed the criminal complaints against all these petitioners. Since common questions of law are involved in all these petitions, they can be disposed of together.

( 3 ) THE factual matrix germane for consideration for an effective adjudication of the matter may be set forth hereunder thus :-

( 4 ) THE first respondent herein-the complainant is a Co-operative Urban Bank established duly under the provision of A. P. Co-operative Societies Act and functioning under the name and style of the Charminar Urban Co-operative Bank Limited . It has its own Bye-laws duly registered. The first accused in C. C. Nos. 554/99 is M/s M. M. Restaurant and Resorts Pvt. Ltd. ; in 547/99 is M/s. Fore Shore Marketing Private Limited; and C. C. No. 548/99 is M/s. Costal Marketing and Trading Co. The second and third accused in the first two cases are the Managing Director and Director respectively thereof and in the last case are the Managing Partner and Partner respectively thereof. The third accused in all these cases are the petitioners herein. The complainant Bank filed the criminal complaints against them under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act ( the Act for brevity ). According to the averments made in the complaint, a loan was sanctioned by the complainant-Bank in favour of the first accused, which agreed to repay the said loan amount with interest at 21 per cent per annum in certain equal instalments. The first accused issued post dated cheques to the complainant-Bank each representing the instalment amount to be paid for that month towards repayment of the said loan amount promising to get the cheques encashed as the when presented by the complainant-Bank within its validity period. When the complainant-Bank presented the cheques bearing Nos. 663615, 015281 and 016912 for the amounts of Rs. 6,07,708. 00 and Rs. 3,80,000. 00 and Rs. 3,75,000. 00 respectively, drawn in favour of the complainant-Bank, for encashment as per the instructions of the accused, the cheques were returned with the endorsement funds insufficient on 13-7-1999, 6-7-1999, and 6-7-1999 respectively. The complainant-Bank, therefore, got issued legal notices under certificate of posting calling upon the accused to remit the amounts covered by those cheques with the complainant-Bank. All the accused acknowledged the receipt of the notices sent by the Bank, but they failed to remit the amounts as demanded. It is further averred in the complaints that the petitioners-accused being the Directors and the Partners of the Company and Firm, as the case may be, have been taking part equally in day to day affairs of the first accused and A-2 and A-3 in all these three cases are responsible for the day-to-day conduct of the business of the first accused and the cheques were issued by the first accused under the signature of the second accused with the knowledge and consent of the third accused and the dishonour of the cheques thus issued was also within the knowledge of the accused.

( 5 ) PURSUANT to the summonses issued after having taken the complaints on file by the learned XVI Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, all the accused appeared before that Court. Thereafter, the petitioners filed the present Criminal Petitions, as aforesaid, seeking to quash the proceedings on the premises that the petitioners had nothing to do with the cheque transactions and that they had not signed the cheques and that all the cheques had