1. By was of these petitions filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Cr.P.C.’), the petitioner assails orders dated 06.09.2014 passed by learned Metropolitan Magistrate (NI Act), Central-01, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi (in Crl. M.C. No.4380/2014) and order dated 08.09.2014 passed by learned Metropolitan Magistrate-03, Central, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi (in Crl. M.C. No.4381/2014), whereby the complaint(s) have been returned to the petitioner/ complainant for filing the same in the Court(s) having proper jurisdiction.

2. Since both these petitions involve an identical question of law and, therefore, these petitions are being disposed of by this common order.

3. Briefly stating the facts giving rise to filing the present petitions are that the petitioner/ complainant filed complaint(s) under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (‘NI Act’, for short) against respondents for the offence under Section 138 of NI Act. Crl. M.C. No.4380/2014 pertains to cheque Nos.034059 dated 15.04.2014 & 034060 dated 15.05.2014 for a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten lakhs) each, and Crl. M.C. No.4381/2014 pertains to cheque No. 034064 dated 10.04.2014 for Rs.1,50,000/- (Rupees One lakh fifty thousand), all drawn on IDBI Bank Ltd., H.No. 3-3-54/A, Kachiguda Station Road, Hyderabad – 500027.

4. In order to have better understanding of facts of the cases, it would be appropriate to refer to facts of one case. The facts are being extracted from Crl. M.C. No.4380/2014. The complainant is a company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act, 1956 having its registered office at B-2B/302, Janakpuri, New Delhi-110058. The respondent No.1 herein (accused No.1 firm in the original complaint) is a Partnership Firm and respondent No.2 to 4 are its Partners who carry out day to day work of the respondent No. 1 Firm. The complainant company and the accused firm entered into an agreement dated 12.05.2012. In terms of the said agreement the complainant company advanced certain sums of money towards the accused firm who in payment of the said amount issued four postdated cheques bearing nos. 034059 dated 15.04.2014, 034060 dated 15.05.2014, 034061 dated 15.06.2014 and 034063 dated 15.07.2014 all drawn on IDBI Bank Ltd., H.No. 3-3-54/A, Kachiguda Station Road, Hyderabad – 500027, for Rs.10,00,000/-(Rupees Ten lakhs) each. On presentation, the cheques no. 034059, 034060 and 034063 were dishonoured with the remarks ‘funds insufficient’ and cheque No. 034061 has been dishonoured for the reason ‘alteration requires drawer authentication’. However, the complainant filed the complaint in respect of cheques No. 034059 and 034060 and retained its right to exercise other legal remedies for the other two cheques No. 034061 and 034063. Despite service of statutory notice dated 15th July 2014, the respondents failed to make payment of amount of the said cheques.

5. Vide the said impugned orders, learned trial courts returned the complaint(s) to the petitioner/complainant for filing the same before the Court of competent jurisdiction, in view of the judgment in ‘Dashrath Rupsingh Rathod vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr.’ (Criminal Appeal No.2287 of 2009 decided on 01.08.2014).

6. Feeling aggrieved by the said orders, the petitioner has filed the present petitions.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that now a days, almost all the branches of the bank are covered under Core Banking Solutions (CBS) and in terms of guidelines issued by Reserve Bank of India vide circular No.RBI/2012-13/163 DPSS.CO.CHD. No.271/03.01.02/2012-13 dated 10.08.2012, all CBS enabled banks have been asked to issue only ‘payable at par’/‘multi-city’ CTS 2010 standard cheques to all eligible customeRs.It has been argued on behalf of the petitioner that one of the essential features of multi-city/cheques payable at par is that the holder of cheque can present the same at any CBS enabled branch of the drawee bank in order to encash the said