JUDGMENT :

1. All these applications are filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (`the Code’ for short) for quashing and setting aside the complaints being Criminal Case Nos.2615 of 2016, 2621 of 2016, 2614 of 2016, 2611 of 2016, 2613 of 2016, 2622 of 2016 and 2618 of 2016 respectively filed under the provisions of the Negotiable Instruments Act (`NI Act’ for short).

2. As the common question of facts and law are involved in all these applications, at the request of learned advocates for the parties, they are heard together and disposed of by this common oral judgment.

3. Rule returnable forthwith. Learned APP Mr.Joshi waives service of notice of rule for respondent no.1-state and learned advocate Mr.Vimal Purohit waives service of notice of rule for respondent no.2.

4. For the sake of convenience, the facts of Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.15360 of 2019 are considered, which are as under:

4.1. A company namely Yogi Hi-Tech Private Limited was incorporated in the year 1995, which was engaged in the business of manufacturing, developing, importing, exporting, trading, distributing etc. All kinds of bearings, tapper rollers etc. And other required materials for automobile, agricultural equipment, oil equipment, oil engines and other allied engineering industries. That on that date, along with the petitioner, two others namely Anilkumar Ramnikbhai Patel and Satishkumar Rasiklal Patel were the directors of the company. Thereafter, new directors were appointed and old directors retired. The applicant herein resigned on 18.1.2006 and therefore he was not in-charge of the affairs of the company.

4.2 A complaint came to be filed by the complainant stating that the complainant as well as the petitioner were business friends and when the complainant reminded the applicant to return the previous due amount, the applicant asked the complainant to send goods to the company Yogi Hi-Tech Private Ltd. And therefore the complainant sent the goods there. It is averred that due to the said transaction, the applicant handed over the cheques which were deposited but returned with an endorsement `account closed’. As the demand for the amount was not fulfilled, the demand notice was sent by the complainant to the applicant.

4.3 Thereafter, a complaint came to be filed in the year 2007 before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Probandar, thereafter, the case was transferred to the court of 2nd Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rajkot and it was renumbered. However, thereafter, again in view of the amendment in the NI Act, the complaint was transferred to Porbandar and it was given the criminal case number impugned herein. It is the impugned complaints which are made in the year 2007 and renumbered thereafter, which are sought to be quashed by way of these applications.

5. Heard learned advocates for the parties.

5.1 Learned advocate Mr.Pipaliya for the applicant submitted that the present applicant is impleaded as accused in the capacity of director of the company named Yogi Hi-Tech Private Limited and from the tenor of the complaint filed under Section 138 of the NI Act, it transpires that the applicant has given assurance to the complainant that the accused no.1 company shall do the needful to pay the amount to the complainant. It is submitted that as per the tenor of the complaint, the cheques were issued from the account of accused no.1 company which were bounced and therefore the notice under Section 138 of the NI Act was issued which was not responded by the accused persons and therefore the impugned complaint is filed. He has submitted that in view of this background, he submitted from the form no.32 filed under the provisions of the Companies Act before the Registrar of Companies and submitted that the present applicant has already resigned as director on 8.1.2006 and the cheques are issued on 3.3.2007 and bounced on 30.3.2007 i.e. much after the applicant has resigned as director of the company.

5.2 Learned advo