(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 the cheques in questions. It is alleged that they were directors of the company. There are averments which suggest that they have roles to play in the management and affairs of the company. All the complaints were filed along with affidavits under Section 145 Cr.P.C in lieu of sworn statement under Section 200 Cr.P.C. No enquiry under section 202 Cr.P.C was taken and process was issued against all the 6 accused persons including the petitioners herein who are accused 3 and 4 in all the prosecutions.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners (petitioners appear through different counsel) have raised various contentions and to resolve the contentions raised, the 3 questions initially raised will have to be answered. The respondent/complainant has entered appearance. Counsels are at variance as to what is the nature of the allegations that ought to be raised in a complaint alleging complicity for the offence under Section 138 r/w 141 Negotiable Instrument Act. The counsel have practically repeated all the arguments that were raised before this Court which were considered in Paul Mathew V. Lab & General Exports Pvt. Ltd [2008 (3) KHC 462 i.e. 2008 (3) kLT 599]. I shall not be dragged further into that controversy afresh. Suffice it to say that after considering all the arguments that are raised before me now, the conclusion has been reached in para 14 of that decision which I extract below:

“What is the final outcome? A careful consideration of all these decisions appears make it clear that in the complaint specific assertions must me made to attract the play of Section 141 of the N.I Act. It has to be pleaded as a fact that the indictees concerned are in charge of and responsible to the company for the conduct of its affairs. Once that allegation is specifically raised, it is for the complainant to adduce evidence in support such assertion later. A ritualistic incantation of the words of the Statute may not be expected or insisted. But it has got to be effectively conveyed as a matter of fact that the accused persons were in charge of and responsible to the company for the conduct of its affairs on the date of the offence. Such averments, if they are there, they can be attempted to be supported later at the stage of enquiry under Section 200/202 of the Cr.P.C or at the later stages of the trial. It is trite in the law of pleadings that what is to be pleaded is the facts and not evidence to be adduced in support of such facts”.

I have no reason to come to any different conclusion on the above aspect even after hearing the detailed arguments in these cases.

5. Thenext question is whether sufficient averments to satisfy the law as understood in para. 14 extracted above are there in these complaints. All the complaints are identical complaints. I have gone th