S. Ravi Kumar, J.

1. All these petitions arise on the complaints filed by second respondent in all the petitions against the petitioners in respect of three separate complaints for the three dishonored cheques. Petitioners in Crl. P. No. 1861/2012 are A1 to A5 in CC No. 108/2011, petitioners in Crl. P. No. 1862/2012 are A1 to A5 in CC No. 109/2011 and petitioners in Crl. P. No. 1933/2012 are A1 to A5 in CC No. 436/2011 on the file of V Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Guntur. Second respondent in all the petitions filed the above referred complaints alleging that the complainant is a civil contractor having main office at Hyderabad and Branch Office at Bangalore, whereas the accused are contractors and doing the work of Airports Authority of India, Mysore Airport and the accused and the complainant have entered into a contract for execution of the works and complainant agreed to do the works mentioned in the work order. As per the contract, the accused has to pay amount for the work done by the complainant on monthly basis and an amount of Rs. 25,69,350/- was due from the accused as on 14.3.2009 the date on which, complainant stopped work due to nonpayment. The accused have issued a cheque bearing No. 585319, dated 15.11.2008 for Rs. 2,50,000/- (subject-matter of CC No. 108/2011), cheque bearing No. 960919, dated 17.12.2008 for Rs. 6,00,000/- (subject-matter of CC No. 436/2011) and cheque bearing No. 961614, dated 14.3.2009, for Rs. 3,00,000/- (subject-matter of CC No. 109/2011) towards part payment, but the first cheque was dishonored on the ground of insufficient funds and the other two cheques were dishonored for the reason payment stopped by the drawer. The complainant issued legal notice and as there was no response from the accused, he filed the above referred complaints to prosecute the petitioners. Challenging all the three cases, the accused filed these petitions.

2. Heard both sides.

3. The main argument of the Advocate for petitioners is that all the petitioners are Managing Director, Directors and Chief Project Manager of BGM Consortium Private Limited, a registered Company, but all the complaints are filed without impleading the company as accused and that all the petitioners cannot be prosecuted without impleading the company, which is the main accused on that ground itself, all the complaints are liable to be quashed.

4. On the other hand, it is the contention of second respondent that necessary allegations required to prosecute Managing Director and Directors apart from the signatory of the cheque are made in the complaint in compliance of Section 141 of Negotiable Instruments Act, therefore, the objection of the petitioners is not tenable.

5. Now the point that would arise my consideration is whether the proceedings in the above referred CCs are liable to be quashed or not?

6. Point: From a plain reading of the complaint and perusal of the disputed cheques, it is crystal clear that cheques were issued on behalf of BGM Consortium Limited. It is the specific case of complainant that he entered into an agreement with BGM Consortium Limited for execution of works namely; Construction of Approach Road & Road perpendicular to Approach Road an East of Service Building and Technical Tower Block and as per the agreement, monthly payments have to be made and as there was no payment as per the agreement, he stopped execution of work on 14.3.2009 and that three cheques were issued towards part payment of the amount due to the complainant. As seen from the work order dated 13.11.2008, it is clear that the agreement was between BGM Consortium Limited and the second respondent. In all the three cheque bounce cases, the company i.e., BGM Consortium Limited is not made as an accused. There is no mention in all the complaints the reasons for not impleading the company on behalf of which disputed cheques were issued. The allegations in the complaint are made as if the accused i.e., petitioners herein have entered into