Mr. Fateh Deep Singh, J.:- In all the petitions detailed above, since common questions of law and facts have arisen and thus necessitates, for the sake of curbing prolixity, to dispose them off through a common judgment. It is clarified that the facts in the present findings have been extracted out of CRM-M No.32689 of 2014.

2. In this petition preferred under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the petitioner M/s Rakesh Oswal Hosiery Mills Private Limited (in short ‘the petitioner’) who also happens to be the complainant before the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Ludhiana, has sought quashment of an order dated 04.09.2014 (Annexure P1) passed by the learned Magistrate, Ludhiana in criminal complaint No.52307/2013 dated 17.08.2013 preferred under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for brevity, ‘the Act’). In all, eight separate complaints were filed by the complainant/petitioner against the respondents.

3. It is the case of the complainant that on account of business transactions between the petitioners and the respondents, the complainant had been supplying goods through various invoices detailed in the complaint and in all till last invoice dated 22.07.2008 had supplied goods worth Rs.90,80,827 out of which only Rs.52,53,530 were paid and in respect of the remaining amount and in acknowledgement of these dues it is alleged that the respondents had issued seven cheques for various amounts detailed in the complaints, all drawn on ICICI Bank, Model Town Branch, New Delhi with the assurance that the same shall be duly honoured.

4. On the assurance and representation of the respondents, the complainant alleges that he duly presented to his bankers these cheques from time to time for encashment and the same were returned back dishonoured on account of insufficiency of funds. It is thereafter, legal notices were issued and after the requisite period upon commission of offence, complaints were filed for each of these cheques.

5. It is during the course of events the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Ludhiana passed impugned orders (Annexure P1) and relying upon ‘Dashrath Rup Singh Rathod v. State of Maharashtra & another’ [2014(3) Law Herald (P&H) 2697 (SC) : 2014(3) Law Herald (SC) 2177] : 2014(3) RCR (Criminal) 904, had directed the complainant to present the complaint along with documents within 30 days before the Court of competent jurisdiction. Precisely, it is over these very findings the petitioner has knocked at the doors of this Court.

6. Heard Mr. Namit Gautam, Advocate for the petitioner and in spite of notice having been served none has put in appearance on behalf of the respondents.

7. As has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner, the Legislature vide Act of Parliament passed on 29.12.2015 had brought about The Negotiable Instruments (Amendment) Act, 2015 which is deemed to have come into force on 15.06.2015 whereby, by virtue of amendment earlier issued through ordinance, provisions of Section 142A were added to the Act, which read as follows:

8. In the principal Act, after Section 142, the following section shall be inserted, namely:-

“142A. (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 or any judgment, decree, order or direction of any court, all cases transferred to the court having jurisdiction under subsection (2) of section 142, as amended by the Negotiable Instruments (Amendment) Ordinance, 2015, shall be deemed to have been transferred under this Act, as if that sub-section had been in force at all material times.

(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in subsection (2) of section 142 or sub-section (1), where the payee or the holder in due course, as the case may be, has filed a complaint against the drawer of a cheque in the court having jurisdiction under sub-section (2) of section 142 or the case has been transferred to that court under sub-section (1) and such complaint is pending in that court, all subsequent complaints arisin