1. The prayer in both these Original Petitions purportedly filed under Article 226(2) of the Constitution of India is to quash the complaints impugned in these petitions. The petitioner in both the cases is the same person. The petitioner in O.P. (Crl.) No. 454 of 2016 is accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act in C.C. No. 911 of 2016 on the file of the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, District South East, Saket Court complex, New Delhi, instituted on the basis of a complaint filed by the first respondent in that petition. Whereas in the unnumbered O.P. (Crl.) the petitioner is accused for the same offence in C.C. No. 754/1 of 2016 on the file of the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Dist. New Delhi, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi, instituted on the basis of a complaint filed by the first respondent in that petition.

2. In both the complaints, the petitioner herein is accused No. 1 and it is described in the cause title of the complaints that he is the authorised signatory, owner and proprietor of M/s. Perfect Drilling General Construction Establishment (accused No. 2) through its Manager, owner or Proprietor. According to the complainant (in O.P. (Crl.) 454 of 2016), he was the employee of accused No. 2 concern, which is based at Saudi Arabia and that the petitioner herein, who is accused No. 1, is the owner and proprietor of accused No. 2 concern and that the petitioner is also the authorised signatory for signing the cheques issued for and on behalf of the second accused. Further it is the case of the complainant that his service was terminated and accused No. 2 had settled the salaries and towards settlement of his salary arrears, accused No. 1, who is the proprietor and authorised signatory of accused No. 2, had issued four postdated cheques dated 20.10.2015 dated 30.11.2015 dated 31.12.2015 and dated 2.2.2016 for Rs. 1,40,000/- each, all drawn from the account maintained by accused No. 1 (petitioner), at Federal Bank, Ernakulam Branch. The abovesaid cheques were initially presented by the complainant through Canara Bank at Patna Branch, which resulted in dishonour and later, it was again re-presented before the Canara Bank, East of Kailash, New Delhi and were dishonoured as per the dishonoured memo dated 4.1.2016. Similar averments are also made in the unnumbered O.P. (Crl.), which is concerning C.C. No. 754/1 of 2016. In that case also, the case of the complainant is that he was an employee of the abovesaid second accused concern and that after the termination of his service, his due salaries were sought to be cleared by accused No. 1 (petitioner) issuing two cheques dated 30.10.2015 and 10.12.2015 each for Rs. 1,40,000/- drawn from the account of the petitioner (accused No. 1) at Federal Bank, Ernakulam Branch, Kerala. The said cheques were presented for collection by the complainant at his Bank, viz. Union Bank of India, Naraina Branch, Delhi, and that it resulted in dishonour. Both the complainants would aver that after satisfying the requisite formalities, they have been initiated the present complaints before the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Court, New Delhi, etc.

3. According to the petitioner, he is not the proprietor or owner of accused No. 2 concern and he was having works with the second accused Company. While he was set at Saudi Arabia, he had lost one cheque book and it is the cheque leaves from that lost cheque book that has been misused and presented in the present two complaints. The contention of the petitioner is that even going by the case projected by the complainants, the cheques were drawn and executed at Saudi Arabia and so the main transaction in respect of the alleged offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act has taken place in Saudi Arabia and that the court in New Delhi does not have jurisdiction to try the offence. Further the petitioner would also argue that going by the judgment of the Apex Court in K. Bhaskaran vs.