B.N. Karia, J.

1. As common question of law and facts arise between the same parties, both these applications are disposed of by this common judgment.

2. Criminal Misc. Application No. 12896/2011 and Criminal Misc. Application No. 12897/2011 have been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ("CrPC" for brevity) by the applicants-original accused Nos. 3 and 4 to quash and set aside Criminal Case No. 804/2011 and Criminal Case No. 979/2011 respectively pending in the Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jamnagar, which have been filed by the respondent No. 2-original complainant for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, so far as original accused No. 3 and 4 are concerned.

3. Brief facts of the case are that the accused No. 1 is the Company and the accused No. 2 is the authorized signatory and Director of the said Company. Whereas, accused No. 3, 4 and 5 are the Directors of the accused No. 1-Company. That, the accused No. 1-Company is engaged in the business of readymade garments. The Company had opened its showrooms for selling readymade garments by taking a shop on rent at Jamnagar through the accused No. 2 and all the work thereof relating to Jamnagar had been handed over to the complainant and monthly rent thereof was agreed at Rs. 75,000/- per month but, the accused did not pay rent for last many months to the shop owner, and therefore, as per say of the accused No. 2, the complainant was paid such rent of Rs. 3,67,985/-. When the complainant demanded such legal amount of rent from the accused No. 2, the applicant No. 1 issued a (1) cheque No. 627683 for Rs. 1,00,000/- of ICICI Bank Limited, Mumbai Branch dated 23.06.2010 and (2) cheque No. 627737 for Rs. 1,00,000/- of ICICI Bank Limited, Mumbai Branch dated 25.10.2010 in favour of Fashion Palace and gave assurance to the complainant that these cheques will be honoured when they would be presented to the Bank. Thus, the complainant presented the cheque No. 627683 on 24.06.2010 in the bank, but cheque was returned with an endorsement "Fund insufficient". Thereafter, the complainant informed the accused No. 2 about return of cheque and as per request of the accused No. 2, the complainant again presented the cheque on 25.10.2010, but once again, it was returned with an endorsement of "Stop payment" and thereafter, once again, as per the say of the accused No. 2, the complainant presented the said cheque on 25.11.2010, but it was returned on the same day with am endorsement "Stop payment". Therefore, the complainant issued a notice through his advocate on 23.12.2010, and when the accused could not make arrangement to pay dues to the complainant, the complainant lodged a complaint, being Criminal Case No. 804/2011, before the Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jamnagar.

4. Likewise, when the complainant presented cheque No. 627737 on 25.10.2010, it was returned with an endorsement "Fund Insufficient" and thereafter, once again, as per say of the accused No. 2, when the said cheque returned back dishonoured, the complainant issued a notice thereof through his advocate on 23.12.2010, and when the accused could not make arrangement to pay dues to the complainant, and therefore, a separate complaint came to be lodged before the Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jamnagar, being Criminal Case No. 979/2011.

5. Heard learned advocate Mr. Premal S. Rachh appearing on behalf of the applicants, learned advocate Mr. MD Thakkar for Mrs. Sangeeta N. Pahwa appearing on behalf of the respondent No. 2 and learned APP Mr. KP Raval appearing on behalf of the respondent No. 1-State.

6. Learned advocate Mr. Premal S. Rachh appearing on behalf of the applicants has stated that there is no averment made in the complaint much less specific averment that in what manner the applicants are involved in the day to day affairs of the Company. That, merely because the applicants