Subrata Talukdar, J.

In all the three CRRs common questions of law and facts arise. Therefore, with consent of the parties the three CRRs were taken up for hearing analogously and are being disposed of by this common judgment.

2. The genesis of the three CRRs arise from a financial accommodation extended by the opposite party no.2 (for short OP2) in favour of Modiluft Ltd. (now known as Spicejet Ltd.) and represented in the three CRRs by one of its stakeholders, Satish Kumar Modi. According to the complaint a total amount of five crores was advanced by the OP2-complainant in favour of Modiluft Ltd. and the said advance was sought to be repaid by way of post-dated cheques towards interest, TDS on interest and repayment of the principal sum. The post-dated cheques were presented on behalf of the OP2- complainant to its banker for encashment and the same being dishonoured three complaint cases were filed against Modiluft Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the Company) by the OP2-complainant under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short the NI Act) before the Ld. Magistrate at Calcutta.

3. The present petitioner applied before the Ld. Magistrate for discharge and such discharge having been refused, a revisional application was filed before the Ld. Sessions Court under Section 397 CrPC. In the light of the refusal also by the Ld. Revisionist Court to entertain the revision and thereby affirming the order of the Ld. Magistrate, the present applications in the form of the CRRs have been filed before this Hon'ble Court under Section 482 CrPC for quashing of the proceedings by setting aside both the orders of the Ld. Trial Court and the Ld. Revisionist Court.

4. Sri Ajit Sukla, Ld. Counsel appearing for the petitioner with Sri U.S. Menon, Ld. Counsel submits that the reliefs of quashing and of discharge from the proceedings is primarily based on the fact that there is a Scheme of Compromise (for short the said Scheme) between the Company and its creditors under Sections 391(1) and 393 of the Companies Act, 1956. Under the terms of the said Scheme the inter corporate depositors (for short ICD), including the OP2-complainant, will be returned 70% of the amounts advanced by them respectively in two instalments. The first instalment of 30% was made conditional upon withdrawal of suits and other proceedings including the criminal complaints under Section 138 of the NI Act pending against the Company.

5. Submitting that the said Scheme was duly approved by an Hon'ble Single Bench of the High Court at Delhi on 15th July, 2005 upon compliance of due process, Sri Sukla takes this Court to the order of the Hon'ble Single Bench which, inter alia, held as follows:-

"63. To sum up, the scheme can be sanctioned subject to the following conditions:

(I) It is subject to decision in CA No.265/2003 and, therefore, clause relating to forfeiture of shares will not be given effect to for time being. In case if it is ultimately held that the RAL has no power to forfeit the shares, it shall bring the necessary finance for payment of the creditors.

(II) The disputes between the two sets of creditors, namely, S.K. Modi group and RHSL which are pending in different suits shall be adjudicated on their own merits without being influenced by the outcome of this petition.

(III) Payment of first instalment to the creditors would not be subject to the withdrawal of the proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act. Instead the parties may apply to the courts where such proceedings are pending, for adjourning the matters till the payment as per the scheme to these creditors is made.

(IV) In so far as different approvals from the Government, including Ministry of Civil Aviation are concerned which may still be required for relaunching of the airline, or any other foreign exchange approvals are yet to be given by the regulatory authorities, the said authorities shall consider the case in accordance with law.

(V) Subject to aforesaid