The petitioners in these three petitions under Sections 138 & 141 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, [hereinafter referred to as “the Act”] are common. Furthermore, except the number and dates of the instruments/cheques in question, most of the relevant factual details in these three petitions are also common. The respondent No.2, which is a partnership firm, is also common in all three petitions. Besides this, learned counsel for the petitioners and respondents are also common and they have made common submissions for all three petitions. Therefore, all three petitions are decided by this Common Order.

2. In Criminal Misc. Application No.3917 of 2012, the petitioners – directors have prayed, inter alia, that:-“7(B) This Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue appropriate writ, order or direction for quashing and setting aside the process issued against the petitioners U/s. 138 and 141 of N.I. Act in Criminal Case No.358 of 2012 pending before the Ld. 2nd Addl. Judicial First Class, Magistrate, Court, Kapadvanj”

2.1 In Criminal Misc. Application No.3919 of 2012, the applicant – director has prayed, inter alia, that:-“7(B) This Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue appropriate writ, order or direction for quashing and setting aside the process issued against the petitioner U/s. 138 of N.I. Act in Criminal Case No.3772 of 2011 pending before the Ld. 2nd Addl. Judicial First Class, Magistrate, Court, Kapadvanj”

2.2 In Criminal Misc. Application No.3920 of 2012, the petitioners – directors have prayed, inter alia, that:-“7(B) This Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue appropriate writ, order or direction for quashing and setting aside the process issued against the petitioners U/s. 138 and 141 of N.I. Act in Criminal Case No.357 of 2012 pending before the Ld. 2nd Addl. Judicial First Class, Magistrate, Court, Kapadvanj”

FACTUAL BACKGROUND:

3. So far as Criminal Misc. Application No.3917 of 2012 is concerned, it arises from Criminal Case No.358 of 2011 filed by the respondent – partnership firm alleging inter alia that the instrument/cheque No.349564 dated 9.8.2011 for a sum of Rs.14,02,950-00 was drawn by the accused persons, i.e. petitioners of Criminal Misc. Application No.3917 of 2012, on company's account No.1725340946 with Central Bank of India, Overseas Branch, Mumbai. The complainant also alleged that the said cheque was signed by accused No.3, i.e. the applicant No.3 in Criminal Misc. Application No.3917 of 2012. The complainant, i.e. present respondent, also alleged that the said cheque was issued by the petitioners in discharge of their debt which arose on account of certain commercial/business transactions entered into between the applicant No.1 company and the respondent – partnership firm. The complainant also alleged that when it presented the said cheque in its account on 23.12.2011 for realization, it was returned dishonoured by the concerned Bank with remark “insufficient fund”. The petitioners also alleged that on receipt of the banker's advice, the complainant served statutory notice dated 21.1.2012 under Section 138 r.w. Section 141 of the Act to the present petitioners, however, despite the said notice, the petitioners did not make payment and that therefore, it was constrained to file Criminal Case No.358 of 2011. The complainant – respondent alleged that the accused Nos.1, 2 and 3 being the directors, are arraigned as accused in the said criminal case.

3.1 So far as Criminal Misc. Application No.3919 of 2012 is concerned, it arises from Criminal Case No.3772 of 2011 filed by the respondent – partnership firm alleging inter alia that the instrument/cheque No.179907 dated 27.7.2011 for a sum of Rs.14,02,950-00 was drawn by the accused persons, i.e. petitioners of Criminal Misc. Application No.3919 of 2012, on company's account No.000405025458 with ICICI Bank Ltd. Mumbai. The complainant also alleged that the said cheque was signed by accused No.1, i.e. the applicant No.1 in Criminal Misc. Application No.3