Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr. P.S. Thiara, Mr. A.P.S. Virk and Mr.V.K. Aggarwal, Advocates
For the Respondent:Mr. Harsh Chopra, Advocate

JUDGMENT :

Deepak Gupta, J.

This order shall dispose of six petitions titled above, as of them have arisen out of the similar summoning orders passed in the three criminal complaints between same parties in respect of 3 cheques issued in same transaction.

2.1 Complainant- M/S Capri Global Capital Ltd. (respondent No.l herein in all the petitions)', and accused, who include the petitioners and respondents No.2 & 3, are common in the three criminal complaints pending in the Court of Id. Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Gurugram.

2.2 Perusal of the paperbook of all the petitions would reveal that as per complainant-M/S Capri Global Capital Ltd., a company engaged in the business of finance and home loan etc., it advanced loan of Rs. 4.3 crore to the accused. In order to discharge their part liability, the accused issued three cheques of ?50 Lacs each, all of which on presentation, were dishonoured. Necessary statutory notices were sent to the accused to pay the cheque amount within 15 days from the date of receipt of the notice but to no avail, compelling the complainant to file the three complaints to prosecute the accused under Section 138 read with Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 [for short 'the NI Act']. Following are the details of the cheques and the complaints:

Complaint No.	Cheque No.	Date	Amount (in Rs.)	All drawn on State Bank of India, Branch Overseas, Delhi
4535 of 2018	548408	24.01.2018	50 lakh
4545 of 2018	548409	24.01.2018	50 lakh
4541 of 2018	548410	24.01.2018	50 lakh

2.3 In all the aforesaid three complaints, following six persons were arrayed as accused: -

Accused N:	Name	Party in these petitions
1.	M/s Zillion Infra-projects Pvt. Ltd.	Respondent No.2
2.	Chandra Shekhar Saxena
3.	Nawal Kishore Saxena
4.	Anant Saxena
5.	Amal Dattkumar Dhru	Petitioner in CRM-M Nos.3495; 6306 & 6290 all of 2023
6.	Satyanarayan Banwari Lal	Petitioner in CRM-M Nos. 6240; 5801 & 6321 all of 2023

2.4 . After recording preliminary evidence in the three complaints, similar orders dated 29.05.2018 were passed by Id. Magistrate in all the three cases, whereby complaint qua accused No.2 & 3 - Chandra Shekhar Saxena and Naval Kishore Saxena was dismissed; whereas, process was directed to be issued against remaining accused No.l, and 4 to 6 to face prosecution under Section 138 read with Section 141 of the NI Act.

2.5 Separate revisions were filed by the petitioners (accused No.5 & 6 in the complaints) before the Court of Sessions, challenging the summoning orders of all the three cases, but all of them were dismissed by the Id. Additional Sessions Judge, Gurugram vide similarly worded orders dated 04.07.2022.

3. Now, accused No. 5 & 6 have approached this Court by way of these petitions. CRM-M-3495-2023, CRM-M-6306-2023 and CRM-M-62902023 have been filed by accused No.5-Amal Dutt Kumar Dhru; whereas CRM-M-6240-2023, CRM-M-5801-2023 and CRM-M-6321-2023 have been filed by accused No.6- Satyanarayan Banwari Lal, challenging the summoning order as well as the order passed by the revisional Court in all the three complaints, by pleading common grounds.

4.1 It is contended that order dated 29.05.2018 was passed by Id. Magistrate without due application of judicious mind, inasmuch it is observed in the order that there was no prima facie ground for summoning of accused No.3 Dwarkanath Ramaswamy Gupta, though there was no accused by the name of Dwarkanath Ramaswamy Gupta, as accused No.3 arrayed in the complaint, is Naval Kishore Saxena.

4.2 Further, despite the fact that similar allegations are pleaded against all the accused, complaint qua the accused No.2 and 3 - Chandra Shekhar Saxena and Naval Kishore Saxena, who are Directors of the accused N: 1 Company, has been dismissed without assigning any reason whatsoever.

4.3 It is further contended that legal notice prior to filing of the complaint is dated 10.02.2018, whereas affidavit of the authorized representative of the complainant, filed in support of the complaint, is dated 05.02.2018 i.e. even prior to the legal notice