1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith.

2. As in both these petitions, parties are the same and questions raised are also similar, therefore, both of them can be disposed off by the common judgment.

3. Respondent no.1, who is the original complainant is private limited company registered under the Companies Act having its office situated at Village: Mann Taluka: Mulshi, District: Pune. Petitioners before this Court are the original accused nos.1 and 2 respectively. Accused no.1 is a private limited company situated at New Delhi and accused no.2 is Managing Director of the said company. Complainant filed complaints under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act in the Court of J.M.F.C., Pune. According to the complainant, it deals in the business of sale of facial tissues, papers towels, paper napkins, etc. Accused are the distributors of the company. Accused in regular course of the business placed an order with the complainant and as per the orders, goods were supplied by the complainant to the accused. In the said transaction, accused incurred huge liability as debt. To discharge the existing legal liability, the accused asked the complainant to deposit the cheques given by the accused as security to the complainant. Accordingly, complainant in one case deposited three cheques dated 25.2.2009 with its banker, i.e., City Bank, Pune through whom those cheques were presented to the drawee bank being Bank of Punjab Ltd., New Delhi for encashment. Two other cheques of same date, drawn against Centurion Bank of Punjab Ltd., New Delhi were also presented to the drawee bank through City Bank Pune. However, all those cheques were dishonoured and returned with remarks ‘Funds Insufficient’. Thereafter, statutory notices were issued by the complainant from its head office at Pune to the accused making demand of the amount of the cheques. In spite of service of notice, accused persons failed to make the payment in respect of those cheques. Complainant filed complaint in respect of three cheques, which was registered as Criminal Case No. STC 0424164/2009 and after recording verification statement of one Prashant Ambedas Dhal an authorised representative of the complainant, the learned J.M.F.C., Pune issued process against both the accused under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. In respect of two cheques drawn against Centurion Bank of Punjab Limited, New Delhi Branch, Criminal Case No.STC 0424166/2009 was registered. In that case also after recording the verification statement of the said Prashant Dhal, process was issued. Issuance of process in both these cases is sought to be quashed by filing these two petitions.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner raised several grounds challenging the issuance of process. Firstly, according to the learned counsel, process was issued without following mandatory provision of making enquiry under Section 202 of the Cr.P.C. when the accused are not situated outside the local jurisdiction of the Magistrate taking cognizance. According to him, in this case, both the accused persons are situated in Delhi while complaints were filed before J.M.F.C., Pune, therefore, it was mandatory to hold enquiry under Section 202 Cr.P.C. before the process could be issued. The learned Single Judge of this Court in Bansilal S. Kabra v/s. Global Trade Finance Ltd. 2010 (2) Bombay C.R. Criminal 754 held that provisions of section 202 about holding of enquiry before issuance of process when the accused is living outside the territorial jurisdiction of the Magistrate is directive and not mandatory. In another case, the learned Single Judge of this Court held that the provision is mandatory but that application was rejected by the learned judge on the ground that the accused had come to the High Court at a belated stage. The learned counsel pointed out that the question has been referred to the larger Bench in view of two conflicting decisions. However, merely because question is referred to t