1. - These three revision petitions by petitioner Vinod Baid involve more or less similar facts and an identical question of law, therefore, they are being disposed of by a common order.

2. In all these revision petitions, the petitioner has challenged the orders taking cognizance of the offence under Sections 420 and 406, Indian Penal Code.

3. In Cr. Revision No. 140/2002, a complaint was filed against the petitioner on 26.11.1997 and the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate vide its order dated 1.4.1998 sent the complaint under Section 156(3), Criminal Procedure Code to the concerned police station for investigation. There-upon, FIR was registered on 4.4.1998 and the police after investigation submitted negative report. On a notice having been issued, the complainant Vishnu Swaroop Baldeva filed a protest petition on 2.5.2002 and the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate took cognizance of the offence.

4. In Cr. Revision No. 138/2002, a complaint was filed by complainant Narain Singh against the petitioner on 3.4.2000 and the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate vide its order dated 5.4.2000 sent the complaint under Section 156(3), Criminal Procedure Code to the concerned police station for investigation. There-upon, FIR was registered on 17.4.2000 and the police after investigation submitted negative report on 19.8.2000. On a notice having been issued, the complainant filed protest petition on 28.2.2001 and the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, on 28.7.2001 ordered that the protest petition be registered as complaint, and ultimately, vide its order dated 21.9.2001 took cognizance of the offence.

5. In Cr. Revision No. 139/2002, a complaint was filed against the petitioner on 3.4.2000 and the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate vide its order dated 5.4.2000 sent the complaint under Section 156(3), Criminal Procedure Code to the concerned police station for investigation. There-upon, FIR was registered on 17.4.2000 and the police after investigation submitted negative report on 19.8.2000. On a notice having been issued, the complainant Santosh Singh filed a protest petition on 28.2.2001 and the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate ordered that protest petition be registered as complaint. Ultimately, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate vide is order dated 21.9.2001 took cognizance of the offence.

6. Before proceeding further, it may be stated that all the three orders impugned in these revision petitions were earlier challenged before this Court in three different SB Civil Writ Petitions No. 742, 743 and 744 of 2000. These writ petitions were dismissed on 24.1.2002. The petitioner challenged the order dismissing the writ petitions by filing special appeals No. 76, 77 and 78 of 2002. The Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 11.2.2002 ordered for treating these special appeals as Revision Petitions.

7. The revision petitions were admitted on 21.3.2002 and notices were issued to the non-petitioners. On 24.4.2002, the arguments of counsel for the parties were heard and concluded on the same day.

8. In assailing the impugned orders, the first argument advanced by Mr. Milind Gokhle, learned counsel for the petitioners is that the order taking cognizance have been passed at the back of the petitioner without affording him any opportunity of being heard and, therefore, the impugned orders being ex-facie, illegal are liable to be set aside.

9. In considering the above argument, suffice it to say that accused does not come into picture in the matter of taking cognizance. It is the offence, of which cognizance is taken under the provisions of Section 190, Criminal Procedure Code. The Magistrate takes cognizance of an offence and not against any particular accused.

10. It is next contended that the learned trial Court while entertaining complaint, has acted without jurisdiction because the Company Law Board is a competent Court and the Company (PCML) is a registered non-banking financial company being governed by the Reserve Bank of India Ac