Pradeep Nandrajog, J.—The 6 captioned petitions center around same issue of law and save and except the borrowers and the sum borrowed as also the date on which the sums were borrowed, factual matrix of all the petitions is the same. Hence, the 6 captioned petitions are being disposed of by a common order.

2. Cri. M (C) 779/05 and Cri. M (C) 2641/05 arise out of a common transaction. Cri. M (C) 848/05 and Cri. M (C) 2642/05 arise out of same transaction. Cri. M (C) 852/05 and Cri. M (C) 2643/05 arise out of the same transaction.

3. The facts are that M/s Shree Krishna Polyester Ltd., petitioner of Cri. M (C) 779/05, Cri. M (C) 848/05 and Cri. M (C) 852/05 had made inter corporate deposits with three group companies, namely, (a) M/s Lottee Holdings Pvt. Ltd., (b) M/s Midopa Holdings Pvt. Ltd. and (c) M/s Lotus Finance & Investment Pvt. Ltd. in sum of Rs.1.4 crores, Rs. l crore and Rs.1.2 crores respectively. The date of the three intercorporate deposits are 17.9.1997, 21.9.1997 and 17.5.1998 respectively.

4. Three identically worded agreements save and except the amount of deposit and the date were executed when the deposits were made.

5. Vide Clause 16 of each agreement it was stipulated that any dispute relating to the intercorporate deposits would be a subject of adjudication by a court within the jurisdiction of the city of Bombay (Mumbai).

6. The three borrower companies had issued postdated cheques for repayment of the deposit. When presented for encashment, all the cheques were dishonoured by the bankers of the borrowers on whom the cheques were drawn stating the reason ‘insufficient funds’.

7. M/s Shree Krishna Polyester Ltd., the holder of the cheques served statutory demand notices required by Section 138 of NI Act on payment not being made, criminal complaints were filed before the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Mumbai under Section 138 read with Section 141 of N.I. Act.

8. In all the complaints, after recording pre-summoning evidence and being satisfied that their existed a prima facie case against the accused, the learned ACMM Mumbai, to whom the complaints were assigned, proceeded to summon the accused persons to face trial for having committed an offence under Section 138 read with Section 141 of N.I. Act.

9. On or about 19.4.2002, the accused in the said complaints, namely, M/s Lottee Holdings Pvt. Ltd. and its directors, M/s Midopa Holdings Pvt. Ltd. and its directors as also M/s Lotus Finance & Investment Pvt. Ltd. and its directors moved applications before the learned ACMM Mumbai stating that during the pendency of the complaints, on 17.9.1999, agreements were entered into between the complainant and the accused, namely, the three borrower companies, as per which on return of the principle sum borrowed, the complainant was obliged to withdraw the complaints.

10. In the three applications which were filed in the three complaints by M/s Shree Krishna Polyester Pvt. Ltd. against all the borrowing companies and its directors, it was inter alia pointed out that pertaining to the deposit taken by M/s Lottee Holdings Pvt. Ltd. Rs.12,00,000 had already been paid and balance amount of Rs.1.28 crores was paid vide bankers cheque No.004568 dated 16.9.1999. Pertaining to M/s Midopa Holdings Pvt. Ltd. it was stated that Rs. 14 lacs had already been paid and balance sum of Rs. 86,00,000 was paid by means of bankers cheque No.004570 dated 16.9.1999. Pertaining to M/s Lotus Finance & Investment Pvt. Ltd. it was stated that a sum of Rs.14,00,000 had already been paid and balance sum of Rs.1.06 crores was paid vide bankers cheque No.004569 dated 16.9.1999. Alongwith the applications, three agreements dated 17.9.1999 were annexed.

11. On behalf of M/s Shree Krishna Polyester Limited, the agreements were purportedly executed by Pravin Tayal, the petitioner of Criminal M(C) 2641/05 to Criminal M(C) 2643/05.

12. Prayer made in the applications made before the learned ACMM was to drop the proceedings in the complaints f