(i) Whether the complaints against the petitioners deserve to be quashed for the reason that sufficient averments are not there to attract liability under Section 138 r/w 141 of the Negotiable Instrument Act (the Act hereafter)?

(ii) Whether the non compliance with the mandate of amended Section 202 Cr.P.C to necessarily conduct an enquiry before issuing process to an accused person residing outside the jurisdiction of the Magistrate, vitiates the cognizance taken in these cases?

(iii) Whether the courts concerned have territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaints?

2. These questions are raised in these petitions where 2 of the 6 accused persons in identical complaints filed by the same complainant pending before two criminal courts seek invocation of the extraordinary inherent jurisdiction under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the prosecution in so far as they relate to them.

3. To the vital facts firsts. The complainant alleged that the 1st accused, a company, had issued the cheques involved in these cases to him for the due discharge of a legally enforceable debt/liability. There is no contention that either of the petitioners had signed