JUDGMENT :

1. All these petitions are being heard and decided together, as the common questions of law is raised.

2. Different complaints were filed by the respondents under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act as the cheques issued by the petitioners on behalf of M/s. Saini Industries Limited were dishonoured for want of fund in the account. Thereafter, the statutory notice having been served, the repayment of the amount was not made, consequently different complaints under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act were filed.

3. The facts show that initially after filing of the complaint, objections were raised by the petitioners by filing interlocutory applications about maintainability of the petition. The same having been dismissed, revision was preferred and the Sessions Judge dismissed the revision by holding that the Directors cannot be absolved of their criminal liability, despite the fact the company has not been arrayed as an accused. Having aggrieved by the said order, the present petitions.

4. The legal question which arises for consideration that whether the complaint under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act without arraigning the company as an accused would be maintainable ?

5. Mr. K. Rohan, learned counsel for the petitioners contended in the memo of complaint the petitioners were described as either Directors of Saini Industries Limited or on behalf of the Saini Industries. Therefore, the company having not been made an accused, the complaint only against the Director would not lie. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the respondents herein are very well in know of the fact that the cheques were issued by petitioners as directors of company, which is evident from copy of the cheques itself. He would submit that the cheques were issued by the petitioners in the capacity of the Director of the Company M/s. Saini Industries. Admittedly, Saini Industries being not arrayed as a party before the Trial Court, in a result, in view of the law laid down in case of Aneeta Hada v. Godfather Travels & Tours (P) Ltd. (2012) 5 SCC 661, the prosecution of the like nature would not lie. He placed his reliance in (2020) 10 SCC 751, (2019) 3 SCC 797, (2018) (13) SCC 663, (2012) 5 SCC 661 and lastly (2009) 6 SCC 729 and would submit that no specific averments have been made that what role the petitioners have played on behalf of the company as an authorised signatory. Therefore, if the company is not made a party as accused, the prosecution itself would not be maintainable.

6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents would submit that there is no dispute about the legal proposition, however, the petitioners were the Directors of the company or not, it is a matter of evidence and no inference can be drawn on this date. The reference was made to the Criminal Appeal Nos.403-405 of 2019 and (2020) 3 SCC 794 and would submit that when there is a disputed question arises for adjudication, the petition under Section 482 would not be maintainable.

7. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents filed alongwith the petitions.

8. The copy of the complaint filed by the respondents shows the description of the parties in CRMP Nos.1643/2019, 625/2020, 1644/2019 & 1645/2019, they have been shown on behalf of Saini Industries. In CRMP No.625/2020 the certified copy of the cheque bears Saini Industries Limited and signed by the Director. So the copy of the complaint would clearly demonstrate the fact that different cheques were issued on behalf of Saini Industries Limited. Admittedly, the company has not been arrayed as an accused.

9. Dealing with similar issue wherein only directors of company is made the accused, leaving the company, the complaint under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act would not lie. In recent judgment in case of Hindustan Unilever Ltd. v. State of Madhya Pra