ORDER :

1. Since common question of law & facts are involved in all the petitions under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C, therefore, they are heard together analogously and are being disposed of by this common order. [For deciding these CRMPs, facts of Cr.M.P. No. 727/2017 is being considered].

2. Petitioner – Chirag Combines has filed these petitions under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. against the order dated 21.03.2017 passed in Criminal Case Nos. 788/2013, 787/2013, 786/2013 & 789/2013, respectively whereby complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (henceforth “NI Act”) has been dismissed for want of prosecution and discharged the respondents/accused from the offence under Section 138 of the NI Act.

3. The brief facts as projected by the petitioner are that the petitioner is a distributor of Samsung Mobile phones. During course of business, the respondents have purchased mobile phone sets from the petitioner. The respondent has issued the following cheques in favour of the petitioner payable at Dena Bank, Branch Katora Talab, Shailendra Nagar, Raipur, towards sale consideration. The details of CRMP, cheque Numbers and amount are given under table form as under :

4. The Petitioner – Company has presented the aforesaid cheques on 08.02.2013 for clearance in HDFC Bank, GE Road, Raipur wherein the petitioner is maintaining the said accounts. The said cheques were dishonoured and the same were returned to the petitioner with an endorsement that the cheques are dishonoured on account of “insufficient balance” in the bank account of the drawer i.e. the respondents herein. The petitioner, on being informed by the Bank vide a note dated 8.2.2013, sent a legal notice dated 9.3.2013 to the respondents demanding the payment to the tune of Rs.1,47,200/-, Rs.1,29,300/-, Rs.2,39,260/- & Rs.1,38,811/-, respectively which were served upon the respondents on 12.03.2013 at their residential address. Even after receipt of notice, respondents/accused did not make the aforesaid payment to the petitioner – Company, therefore, as per provisions contained in Section 138 of the NI Act i.e. after service of notice upon the respondents, the petitioner filed complaint case under Section 138 of the NI Act before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Raipur, which were registered as Complaint Case Nos. 788/2013, 787/2013, 786/2013 & 789/2013, respectively.

5. Learned trial Magistrate, after recording of primary evidence of the petitioner, has registered the complaint and issued notices to the respondents/accused. The charges have not been framed against the respondents. The case was fixed on 21.3.2017 for appearance of the parties. On the said date neither the complainant/petitioner nor his counsel was present whereas on behalf of respondents/accused, their counsel appeared. Since the petitioner/complainant has not appeared on the date of hearing, the trial Magistrate has dismissed the aforesaid complaints for want of prosecution and discharged the respondents/accused of the offence under Section 138 of the NI Act. These orders are being challenged by the petitioner by filing four petitions under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.

6. Since the respondents/accused have been discharged by the learned trial Magistrate, the petitioner has an alternative remedy of filing revision petition under Section 397 of the Cr.P.C. before the concerned Sessions Judge. The petitioner has not exhausted the remedy available to him under Section 397 Cr.P.C for filing revision, therefore, th