1. The self-same petitioner Sesham Rao Niranjan of the 5 quash petitions supra, outcome of the 5 private complaints, is the accused filed by the respective complainants by name Kum. Vidhi Mital D/o Sri Vijay Mittal viz; in C.C.No.354 of 2015 (old C.C.No.734 of 2015) (in Crl.P.No.8414 of 2016), Smt. Manju Mittal W/o Vijay Mittal in C.C.No.353 of 2015 (old C.C.No.733 of 2013) (in Crl.P.No.8691 of 2016), 3) M/s Vijaya Mittal(HUF) represented by its Kartha Vijay Mittal in C.C.No.281 of 2015 (old C.C.No.363 of 2014) (in Crl.P.No.8692 of 2016), 4) M/s C.L.Mittal(HUF) rep. by its Kartha Sri C.L.Mittal in C.C.No.277 of 2015(old C.C.No.351 of 2014) (in Crl.P.No.8695 of 2016) and 5) Sri Vidhan Mittal s/o Vijay Mittal in C.C.No.326 of 2015(old C.C.No.610 of 2014) (in Crl.P.No.8706 of 2016) all the cases on the file of the VI Spl.Magistrate Court at Visakhapatnam, for the offences punishable under Sections 138 and 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

2. The quash petition averments common in the 5 petitions impugning the cognizance taken by the learned Magistrate and its sustainability are that as per Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the complaint must be in writing made by the payee or the holder in due course of the cheque, as the case may be, and to read with Section 142 of the Act, it is the complainant, who filed the case must sign the complaint whereas, all the respective 5 complaints in question were signed by one G.P.Sharma as GPA holder of the respective Complainants and not by respective complainants as Payees and except mentioning in the cause title of the respective complainants represented by GPA holder and at the end of the complaint at the signature as GPA holder but there is nothing to show the complaint filed on behalf of the original payee by the GPA holder to comply with the legal requirements and thereby from filing of complaint and taking of cognizance are unsustainable and are liable to be quashed.

3. A perusal of the respective 5 complaints in question, in the cause title mentioned the name of the complainant by mentioning the name of the complainant referring as represented by Power of Attorney Holder Sri G.P.Sharma, and in the full cause title also the address of the payee as represented by the Power of Attorney Holder address given. The complaints averments speak the cheques issued for legally enforceable debts when presented returned dishonored and on intimation, notice cause issued and failed to liquidate and from the accrual of cause of action, filed the complaints in question before the Court having jurisdiction and at the end, the signature of the advocate, and the signature of the complainant represented by its Power of Attorney Holder including after verification of the facts are true and correct by complainant it is mentioned as represented by GPA holder. There is sworn statement filed for taking cognizance of the said private complaint by the said G.P.Sharma-GPA holder shows that he is working as Accountant in Mittal Chambers and as GPA Holder of the complainant respectively having personal knowledge about the facts and filed a complaint on behalf of the complainant and the cheques, issued for the legally enforceable debt, returned dishnoured and for notice issued failed to pay and from the accrual of cause of action as referred in the complaints, the respective complaints are maintained.

4. The learned counsel for the quash petitioner submits in support of the grounds urged in the quash petitions that 5 complaints filed are unsustainable and laconic and contrary to legal requirements and the cognizance orders per se unsustainable and thereby the cognizance orders are liable to be set aside by quashing the proceedings in all the cases.

5. Whereas, it is submission of the learned counsel for the respective complainants as 2nd respondent for each of the 5 quash petitions that in the cause titles as well as in the verification paragraphs of the complaints clearly mentioned as filed by GPA