Hon’ble Shri Kant Tripathi, J.—Heard the learned counsel for the applicant and the respondent No. 2 and learned AGA for respondent No. 1 and perused the record.

2. These four petitions under Section 482 Cr.P.C. have been filed by the applicant Smt. Usha Gupta against the respondents and the controversy involved in the petitions is common, therefore, they are being disposed of together by this common order.

3. It appears that the respondent No. 2 is a partnership firm involved in the business of sale of paper and materials relating thereto. The applicant Smt. Usha Gupta is the Proprietor of M/s Ultra Pack, Kanpur. The respondent No. 2 and the applicant entered into a commercial contract on which basis the applicant agreed to purchase paper and paper materials from the respondent No. 2. It further appears that several transactions took place between the respondent No. 2 and the applicant and there had been sale of paper and paper materials by the respondent No. 2 to the applicant but according to the complaint, the applicant failed to pay certain amount in regard to few sale transactions due to which the respondent No. 2 filed four different complaints against the applicant in the Court of concerned Magistrate at Meerut with the allegations that the applicant had given full assurance to pay the entire sale consideration and on the basis of that assurance the respondent No. 2 made supplies but the applicant, despite receiving the supplies, failed to carry out her promises and thereby caused a wrongful loss to the respondent No. 2. It is also stated in the complaints that the applicant’s intention was dishonest from very beginning and she entered into the contract with that intention.

4. In Misc. Application (482) No. 3205/2008 the proceedings of the complaint case No. 4249 of 2007 has been impugned. The subject-matter of the said complaint is 08 Bills on which basis a supply of materials to the tune of Rs. 13,28,726.65 had been made and the applicant has made the payment of Rs. 9,62,492.60 and a sum of Rs. 3,66,234.05 has yet not been paid by the applicant and is due.

5. In Misc. Application (482) No. 3206/2008 the proceedings of the complaint case No. 4086 of 2007 has been impugned. The subject-matter of the said complaint is 14 Bills on which basis a supply of materials to the tune of Rs. 25,03,934.75 had been made and the applicant has made the payment of Rs. 18,50,000.00 and a sum of Rs. 6,53,934.75 has yet not been paid by the applicant and is due.

6. In Misc. Application (482) No. 13532/2008 the proceedings of the complaint case No. 4250 of 2007 has been impugned. The subject-matter of the said complaint is 04 Bills on which basis a supply of materials to the tune of Rs. 6,00,933.60 had been made and the applicant has made the payment of Rs. 70,701.00 and a sum of Rs. 5,30,232.60 has yet not been paid by the applicant and is due.

7. In Misc. Application (482) No. 20617/2008 the proceedings of the complaint case No. 231 of 2008 has been impugned. The subject-matter of the said complaint is 18 Bills on which basis a supply of materials to the tune of Rs. 34,30,761.90 had been made and the applicant has made the payment of Rs. 30,25,565.45 and a sum of Rs. 4,05,196.45 has yet not been paid by the applicant and is due.

8. The learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the dispute between the applicant and the respondent No. 2 is of civil nature and there is no material to show that the intention of the applicant was dishonest on the date of entering into the contract with the respondent No. 2. In the course of business the applicant received certain goods from the respondent No. 2 and made payment but if due to certain reasons could not make payment of the entire amount, the proper course for the respondent No. 2 was to file a civil suit for recovery instead of filing the complaints by bringing the dispute within the purview of the criminal Court.

9. The learned counsel for the respondent No. 2, on the other hand,