JUDGMENT

Anup Jairam Bhambhani, J.

1. By way of the present petitions filed under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (`Cr.P.C.') the petitioners seek quashing of summoning orders dated 08.03.2017 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, District Courts, Saket, Delhi in CC Nos. 2999/2017 (New CC No. 7355/2017), 3000/2017 (New CC No. 7359/2017), 2996/2017 (New CC No. 7357/2017), 2997/2017 (New CC No. 7358/2017), 3002/2017 (New CC No. 7356/2017), 2998/2017 (New CC No. 7361/2017), 3001/2017 (New CC No. 7360/2017) and the respective complaints seeking prosecution of the petitioners under section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (`NI Act.).

Brief Facts

2. A brief conspectus of facts leading-up to the filing of the present petition is as follows:

2.1 Petitioner No. 1 (Sashi Kumar Nagaraji), petitioner No. 2 (Sanjay Kumar Nagaraji) and petitioner No. 3 (Swaminathan Nagaraji) are directors of respondent No. 2 company (M/s. Saravana Alloys Steels Pvt Ltd). Respondent No. 1 company/complainant (M/s Magnifico Minerals Pvt Ltd) is engaged in the business of resale of imported steam coal. Respondent No. 3/Nagaraji Saravana is the signatory of the cheques that are subject matter of the present petition and has therefore been impleaded as a pro-forma respondent in the present petitions.

2.2 The allegation in the criminal complaints is that the respondent No. 2 company had placed an oral order for purchase of coal at the registered office of the complainant in Delhi, pursuant to which the goods ordered were supplied between 19.10.2012 and 06.09.2013; consequent whereupon an amount of Rs.3,74,25,537/- became due and recoverable by respondent No. 1 from respondent No. 2.

2.3 Toward payment for the above-mentioned transaction, respondent No. 2 issued to respondent No. 1 the following 07 cheques, which were however dishonoured and returned with different remarks, as summarised in the table below:

2.4 Each of the cheques issued were for an amount of Rs.50,00,000/- and all cheques were drawn on City Union Bank Ltd., Sultanpet Circle, Bangalore and were dishonoured at Canara Bank, Okhla Industrial Estate, New Delhi.

2.5 Multiple statutory notices were issued in relation to the dishonoured cheques on different dates as aforementioned, demanding the payment of the amounts due. However, it is the petitioners' case that, contrary to what is claimed by respondent No. 1 company, no statutory notice was received by the petitioners.

2.6 Upon not receiving the cheque amounts, 07 complaints were filed alleging the offence under section 138 of the NI Act in Bangalore and Delhi. 02 complaints were filed on 23.07.2014 in the court of the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Saket, Delhi (`CMM, Delhi.) that are subject matter of challenge in CRL.M.C. Nos. 2487/2017 and 2490/2017 and 05 other complaints were filed on 27.08.2014 in the court of the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore (`ACMM, Bangalore.) that are subject matter of challenge in CRL.M.C. Nos. 2480/2017, 2481/2017, 2489/2017, 2491/2017 and 2492/2017.

2.7 In the 05 complaints filed in Bangalore, the learned ACMM, Bangalore was satisfied that the complainant had made-out a prima-facie case against the accused persons, and therefore, vide order dated 10.09.2014, the learned ACMM, Bangalore proceeded to issue summons to all the accused persons in those complaints.

2.8 As for the 02 complaints initiated in Delhi, the learned CMM, S