JUDGMENT :

Harpreet Singh Brar, J. (Oral)

1. This common order shall dispose of all five of the above-mentioned cases as they arise from the similar factual matrix. However, for the sake of brevity, facts are culled out from CRM-M-15356-2022.

2. The present petition is preferred under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of complaint no. NACT-11028 of 2018 dated 17.12.2018 titled 'Sunil Dutt Bansal v. SRS Buildmart Pvt Ltd and ors' (Annexure P-1) under Sections 138 read with Section 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as the 'NI Act') and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom including summoning order dated 23.12.2021 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Faridabad (Annexure P-3) under Section 138 of the NI Act.

FACTUAL MATRIX

3. Briefly, the facts are that petitioners are the Directors of a company named SRS Buildmart Private Limited. Allegedly, the petitioners along with other accused allured the respondent to invest money to the tune of Rs. 15,42,000/- in their company. When the respondent-complainant requested them to return his principal amount (Rs. 15,42,000/-) then the petitioners in order to discharge their legal liability, issued three cheques, cheque bearing No.234487 dated 15.10.2017 for Rs.2,42,000/- drawn on Union Bank of India, cheque No.419540 dated 12.07.2018 for Rs.6,50,000/- drawn on Oriental Bank of Commerce and cheque bearing No.234465 dated 21.08.2018 for Rs.6,50,000/- drawn on Oriental Bank of Commerce, in favour of the respondent. Upon presentation for encashment, all three cheques were separately dishonoured. The complaint (supra) pertains to cheque dated 21.08.2018. The said cheque was dishonoured vide memo dated 21.11.2018 with remarks 'Funds Insufficient'. Thereafter, a legal notice was issued to the petitioners on 26.11.2018, calling upon the petitioners and other accused to pay the cheque amount, but to no avail. Aggrieved, the respondent preferred the above-mentioned complaint.

4. On finding a prima facie case against petitioners, learned JMIC, Faridabad summoned them to face trial for commission of offence under Section 138 of the NI Act, vide order dated 23.12.2021.

5. For the sake of clarity, it is apt to give certain details with respect to cheques, which were dishonoured and the summoning orders against which present petitions are filed, which are tabulated as under

CONTENTIONS

6. Learned counsel for the petitioners inter alia contended that the respondent-complainant has mischievously filed the above-mentioned complaint without complying with the directions issued by this Court in Anil Chanana vs. M/s Gyani Ram Ruliya Ram, CRM-M-36869-2018 decided on 30.10.2018 as well as the directions issued by Delhi High Court in Sudeep Jain vs. M/s ECE Industries Ltd., CRL.M.C.1821/2013 decided on 06.05.2013. It is further submitted that it was incumbent upon the respondent to file Form No.32 along with the said complaint (supra) to indicate whether the petitioners could be held liable for any offence under Section 138 NI Act. To sup