JUDGMENT :

Ramesh Sinha, Rajeev Singh, J.

1. By means of the instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners are seeking the following reliefs :

“(i) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashin the impugned Government Orders dated 30.12.2015 and 26.07.2016 (Annexure Nos. 1 and 2, Writ Petition) as well as such other orders as may be consequential or incidental thereto for being illegal and unconstitutional insofar as the trial of an offence punishable under S. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (Chapter XVII of the said Act) by the Additional Courts of Presiding Officers held by the retired District and Sessions Judges is concerned and if this severability is found to be not feasible, the aforesaid Government Orders and the creation of the said Additional Courts thereunder may kindly be quashed in their entirety;

(ii) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the proceedings of the Court of Presiding Officer, Additional Court, Room No.5, Lucknow in the impugned Case No. 6800/2018 : Sri Praveen Kumar v. Sri Asif Ali and another lodged against the petitioners under S. 138 read with S. 141, Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 on the complaint of respondent no.5 dated 16/18.8.2018 (Annexure No.4, Writ Petition) declaring the said proceedings, along with the creation of the said Additional Court, to be a nullity and void ab initio for being unconstitutional and illegal;

(iii) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of prohibition prohibiting any further proceedings against the petitioners before the Court of Presiding Officer, Additional Court, Room No. 5, Lucknow or any other Court in Case No. 6800/2018 :Sri Praveen Kumar v. Sri Asif Ali and another lodged under Section 138 read with S. 141, Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 on the complaint of respondent no.5 dated 16/18.8.2018 (Annexure No.4, Writ Petition)

(iv) issue such other writs, orders or directions as may be deemed appropriate in the facts and circumstances of the case so as to give effect to the relief claimed above and protect and safeguard the rights and interest of the petitioners;

(v) award costs in favour of the petitioners.”

2. Heard Shri Anupam Mehrotra, learned Counsel for the petitioners, Shri Prachish Pandey, learned AGA for the respondents no.1/State and Shri Shishir Jain, learned Counsel for the respondent nos. 2 to 4.

3. With the consent of the learned Counsel for the petitioners, learned AGA and learned Counsel for the respondent nos. 2 to 4, the present writ petition is being heard and decided at the admission stage itself.

4. Shorn off unnecessary details, the essential skeletal material facts necessary for appreciation of the squabble are that petitioner no.1-Syed Asif Ali is the sole proprietor of M/s Bushrah Export House (petitioner no.2 herein), which engaged in the business of garment. Respondent no.5-Sri Praveen Kumar is stated to be a retired bank employee.

5. It has been stated by the petitioners that in the year 2014, accused/petitioner no.1 learnt from the office of his Chartered Accountant, namely, Sri Akshay Kumar that one Praveen Kumar (respondent no.5) wants to sell his house. For the purpose of purchasing the house of respondent no.5, petitioner no.1 handed over two undated cheques, bearing No. 173883 for Rs.24,00,000/- and No. 173864 for Rs.6,00,000/-, to his Chartered Accountant. Both these cheques were of the account of M/s Bushrah Export House at the State Bank of India, Ashok Marg Branch, Lucknow and signed by the petitioner no.1 as the sole proprietor of M/s Bushrah Export House. However, the respondent no.5 had finally said that he does not want to sell the house. Therefore, the matter of the proposed sale and purchase of the said house ended there.

6. It has also been stated by the petitioners that since 2014, after the respondent no.5 said that he does not want to sell the house, the aforesaid two cheques, in normal course of business betw