ORDER :

These petitions are filed by the same parties, the matters are similar and the reliefs sought in all the petitions are also similar, only challenging taking of cognizance and also dismissing of the revision petitions. Hence, all the matters are taken up together for common disposal.

2. W.P.No.15592/2020 and W.P.No.15650/2020 are questioning the order of taking cognizance dated 23.10.2019 and W.P.No.15682/2020 questioning the order of taking cognizance dated 16.11.2019 and also dismissal of Crl.R.P.No.316/2020, Crl.R.P.No.317/2020 and Crl.R.P.No.325/2020, respectively vide order dated 17.12.2020.

3. The factual matrix of the case is that the respondent herein in all the matters has filed a complaint under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. against the petitioners herein invoking the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (‘the NI Act’ for short) for bouncing of the cheques issued by the petitioners herein and demand notice was issued. In spite of demand notice not complied the demand. Hence, the respondent has filed the complaint before the learned Magistrate.

4. The learned Magistrate taking cognizance proceeded to record the sworn statement and passed the impugned orders dated 23.10.2019 and 16.11.2019 taking note of the affidavit filed under Section 145 of the NI Act and also the documents which have been marked and while taking the cognizance referred the guidelines issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Indian Bank Association and others v. Union of India and another reported in AIR 2014 SC 2528, and observed that the complaint is accompanied by documents and the same are found in order. While passing an order, an observation is made that the complainant has made out a prima facie case to issue process against the accused for an offence punishable under Section 138 of the NI Act. Hence, issued the process against the petitioners herein in all the matters. Hence, the present petitions are filed by the petitioners herein seeking the relief of issue a writ or order by setting aside the order passed by the Revisional Court in Crl.R.P.No.316/2020, Crl.R.P.No.317/2020 Crl.R.P.No.325/2020, respectively vide order dated 17.12.2020 and also issue a writ or order by quashing of taking cognizance.

5. The main grounds urged in all the petitions are common and it is contended that the notice was served upon the petitioners on 12.07.2019, but the private complaint was filed only on 02.08.2019 without considering the delay process has been issued. It is also contended that there was an agreement between the parties dated 19.04.2019 and in terms of clause 11.3, if any dispute has arisen same shall be referred to and finally resolved by arbitration. The other contention in terms of clause 7.1, the said agreement, if there is any default by the respondent in making payments, the said agreement would stand terminated and the consequences would follow. This clearly indicates the complainant has failed to establish that there is legally enforceable debt. There is no any iota of evidence to show that the complainant has been authorised by the Board of Directors to initiate the proceedings. It is also contended that the complainant has marked the printed postal receipts for proof of service of demand notice along with 65(B) Certificate and the same has been issued by the Advocate and the same is against the Bar Council Rules. None of the conditions of 65(B) has been complied. Hence, it requires an interference of this Court.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioners in his arguments vehemently contended that the case was filed before XLII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Bengaluru and no cognizance was taken and record the sworn statement on the same day and the cognizance was taken by the XXVIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Bengaluru. The other contention of the learned counsel is that no affidavit is filed and an advocate has given the certificate under Section 65(B) and the same is i