Suresh Kait, J.

1. Vide these petitions filed under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., petitioners seek directions thereby quashing of the summoning order dated 26.06.2007 passed by learned Trial Court in Criminal Complaint Case No. 343/1/2002. Consequently, the aforenoted complaint case be also quashed against them.

2. Vide the impugned order learned Trial Court had issued the summons to accused Nos.1 to 15 including the petitioners herein for the offences punishable under Sections 499, 500, 501, 502, 34 of the IPC. However, summons were not issued against 16th accused, i.e., Times News Network.

3. Since the facts of all these three petitions are common and the same are directed against summoning order dated 26.06.2007 arising out of a complaint filed by respondent No.2, therefore, this Court has decided to dispose of these petitions by a common judgment.

4. The allegations in narrow compass as contained in the complaint filed before learned Trial Court against petitioners are that the respondent No.2 had a long business relationship with accused No.1, i.e., M/s Bennett Coleman & Company Limited and advertisements had been placed in accused persons’ newspaper for the last nearly 8 years. Until recently, the complainant had been advertising heavily in the accused newspaper intimating the general public about the timing of tests, the success rates of its students etc. For the period 2000 to 2001, advertisements worth Rs.1,01,49,143/- and for the period 2001-2002 advertisements worth Rs.59,56,092/- had been placed in the accused newspaper. At the present rate of advertisement tariffs in the accused persons newspaper it works out to about Rs.2.15 Crores. The accused have, therefore, benefited economically and financially in their association with the complainant. For the calendar year commencing from 2002 the complainant had commenced negotiations with the accused No.1 towards seeking a discount in the advertisement rates, which is a normal practice in the trade of bulk booking of advertisements in newspapers. The negotiations were held particularly with Mr. R. Ricky, Mr. Daruman and Mr. Alok Mathur, the accused Nos.13 to 15 respectively from the marketing department. The complainant was represented by one of its senior officers Mr. Annu Kundlu in such negotiations. In this regard, the accused Nos. 14 & 15 visited the office of the complainant in January 2002 for such negotiations. At all times during the negotiations it was impressed upon the complainant by the above referred persons that as the complainant was a big advertiser, any final decision relating to the tariffs for advertisement would only be taken by the Chairperson and the Managing Director, accused Nos.2 & 5 respectively and after consultations with accused Nos.3, 4 & 6 the top management of the accused No.1. However, the discounts offered were far below the normal industry standard and the complainant requested the accused Nos. 13 to 15 to reconsider their offer pertaining to the discounts in advertising tariffs. Accordingly, the above referred accused persons represented to the complainant that the top management of the accused No.1 will have the final word as far as the case of the complainant was concerned. Subsequently, the accused persons informed the complainant that the high officials including accused Nos.2 to 6 in the management of the accused No.1 had refused to relax the advertisement tariffs for the complainant. Hence, the negotiations failed and the complainant stopped advertising in the newspaper of the accused persons.

5. Mr. Handoo, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that respondent No.2 instituted the above noted complaint case against 16 accused and vide the impugned order dated 26.06.2007, learned Trial Court had issued summons against 15 accused out of total 16. Accused No.2 Ms. Indu Jain and accused No.5 Vineet Jain, the Chairperson and Managing Director respectively, challenged the summoning order in Crl. M.C. No. 685/2008 a