The main legal point established in the judgment is the vicarious liability of the petitioners under Section 138/141 of the N.I. Act, based on specific averments in the complaint regarding their roles and responsibilities in the company.

Aruna Suresh, J.

1. By way of this common order I shall deal with five petitions seeking quashing of Complaint Cases; Nos. 1745/1 of 2007, 1748/1 of 2007, 1751/1 of 2007, 1747/1 of 2007 and 1746/1 of 2007 filed against the petitioners under Section 138/141 of Negotiable Instruments Act (hereinafter referred to as "N.I. Act") read with Section 420 Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as "IPC"), proceedings conducted therein and the summoning order dated 16th July, 2007 passed thereunder as they arise out of the same transaction involving the common question of law.

2. Complainant M/s. Ratna Commercial Enterprises Ltd. (respondent herein) had been advancing loan to the petitioners for funding its capital requirements for the purposes of development of a chip called "VSU" totaling sum of Rs. 54,08,93,273/-. A substantial portion of these amounts were advanced to Vasu Tech Limited (hereinafter referred to as "Petitioner company") as short term loan repayable after one year and in certain cases repayable with the close of the financial year. Receipt of all these amounts was duly acknowledged by the petitioner company. A loan agreement was entered into between the complainant and petitioner company on 15th April, 2005 which spelt out the terms and conditions of the loan including the condition that the amounts advanced to the petitioner shall carry interest at the rate of 12% per annum payable on the interest payment date. Simultaneously, a Deed of Guarantee in favour of the complainant was also executed by promoters of petitioner company, namely, Shri Dhruv Varma, Sh R.L. Varma (Petitioner No. 2 and 3 herein) and M/s R.L. Varma & Sons (HUF), whereby the above named persons irrevocably and unconditionally guaranteed the due payment of loan to the complainant. A Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) dated 31.8.2006 was also executed between the parties. After execution of the agreement complainant advanced some more amount to petitioner company on specific terms and conditions as laid down in the Loan Agreement and the Guarantee Agreement was extendable to the further advances as well. The total amount advanced by the complainant to petitioner company exclusive of interest was to the tune of Rs. 54,08,93,273/-. Petitioner company issued 16 post dated cheques for a total amount of Rs. 61,63,66,140/- towards the repayment of the loan amount/interest thereon.

3. The subject matter of the five complaints are 13 cheques all dated 1st April, 2007 details of which as under:

Petition Complaint Case Cheque No. Drawn on

Crl M.C No. 3369/2007 Complaint Case No. 381112, Central Bank, 1

1745/01 Jevantara Building, Parliament Street, New Delhi

381121 -do-1

Crl M.C No. 3370/2007 Complaint Case No. 370500 -do-60 1748/01

381122 -do-50

3704797 -do-40

Crl M.C No. 3371/2007 Complaint Case No. 381113 -do-45 1751/01

381118 -do-40

381103 -do-35

Crl M.C No. 3372/2007 Complaint Case No. 370487 -do-7,471747/01

370486 -do-50,83

381126 -do-55

Crl M.C No. 3373/2007 Complaint Case No. 381125 -do-1 1746/01

370499 -do-1

4. These cheques on presentation by the complainant to its bankers were dishonoured and returned back with the remarks "Payment stopped by Drawer" vide return memo dated 18.06.2007 and informed the complainant company vide bank memo dated 19.06.2007. Resultantly, complainant issued legal notice dated 19.06.2007 in accordance with the provisions contained under Section 138 of the

N.I. Act wherein demand for payment of the impugned cheques within the prescribed period of 15 days was raised. This notice was duly received by the petitioners and was replied vide reply dated 6.7.2007. Since petitioners failed to make the payment of the dishonoured cheques, aforesaid complaints were filed by the complainant against the petitioners with further allegations that payment of the impugned cheques was stopped by the petitioner with a malafide intention not to make the payment of the due amount to