Jitendra Chauhan, J.

By way of this single judgment, four petitions under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, are being disposed of as the dispute is between the same parties and identical questions of law are involved therein.

In CRMM-3975-2013, petitioner Kailash Chand Jain, has sought quashing of the criminal complaint case No.2057 of 2012 dated 06.07.2012, and the impugned summoning order dated 29.08.2012, passed by the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Gurgaon, and all consequent proceedings arising therefrom.

In CRMM-3976-2013, the petitioner has sought quashing of the criminal complaint case No. 2237 of 2012, dated 06.08.2012, and the impugned summoning order dated 06.08.2012, passed by the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Gurgaon, and all consequent proceedings arising therefrom.

In CRMM-15903-2013, the quashing of the complainant case No. 3846 RM/12 (Old No. 2057/2012) dated 29.08.2012, and summoning order dated 29.08.2012, passed by Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Gurgaon, and all consequent proceedings arising therefrom has been sought.

Whereas, in CRMM-15904-2013, the petitioners, Paresh Jain and Rakesh Kumar Jain, have sought quashing of complainant case No.3844 RM/12 (Old No.2237/2012) dated 06.08.2012, and summoning order dated 06.08.2012, passed by Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Gurgaon, and all consequent proceedings arising therefrom.

However, for brevity, the facts are being derived from CRMM-3976-2013.

The brief facts emerging from the pleadings of the parties are as under:

On 25.03.2009, the respondent had granted factoring facility to M/s Vikash Metal & Power Ltd., who is described as 'Borrower' in the factoring transaction; and M/s Action distributors Pvt. Ltd. & M/s Sahaj Distributors Private Ltd. are 'Approved Debtor' in the said transaction. This implied that M/s Vikash Metal & Power Ltd. was selling goods to M/s Action Distributors Pvt. Ltd. & M/s Sahaj Distributors Private Ltd., and the invoices payable to M/s Vikash Metal & Power Ltd. were being assigned to the respondent. On 26.02.2010, one of the directors of M/s Vikash Metal & Power Ltd. namely, Mr. Akash Patni, undertook and confirmed that in case the company failed to make payment of the outstanding amount within a period of seven days under facility, the respondent shall have a right to present the cheque issued by them for realization. M/s Vikash Metal & Power Ltd. through its directors issued nine cheques in favour of the respondent towards discharge of its liability on 10.05.2012. On 29.02.2012, the petitioner is said to have resigned from the Board of M/s Vikash Metal & Power Ltd. and has also filed an alleged document showing his resignation. The respondent denied this document. On 07.07.2012, the cheques in question were returned unpaid with the remarks, 'Funds insufficient'. On 18.07.2012, a notice of demand under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short, 'the Act'), was issued by the respondent to M/s Vikash Metal & Power Ltd. and its directors including the petitioner herein. On 06.08.2012, the impugned complaint (Annexure P2) under Section 138 of the Act, was filed by the respondent against M/s Vikash Metal & Power Ltd. and its directors, including the petitioner herein. Impugned summoning order dated 06.08.2012 (Annexure P1) was passed by the trial Court. A letter was issued by M/s Vikash Metal & Power Ltd. addressed to the respondent admitting its liability and a schedule for payment of the outstanding amount.

The learned counsel for the petitioners submit that the petitioners have already resigned from the respondent Company, and even during their tenure, none of the petitioners, was either incharge or in control of the day-to-day activities or responsible for the conduct of the business of the Company. They were summoned as their names were mentioned in the past records of the Company not pertaining to the relevant period.

On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent-complainant submits that the p