- (1.) As identical points of law and facts are involved, therefore, I propose to dispose of above indicated petitions to quash the impugned complaints & summoning orders, by virtue of this common judgment, in order to avoid the repetition. However, the crux of the facts, which needs a necessary mention for the limited purpose of deciding the core controversy, involved in the instant petitions, has been extracted from (1) CRM No. M-24079 of 2011 titled as "Pankaj Badlani & Ors. Vs. M/s Nectar Lifesciences Ltd. & Ors. " for ready reference in this context.
(2.) Tersely, the facts & material, culminating in the commencement, relevant for deciding the present petitions and emanating from the record, are that initially, M/s Nectar Lifesciences Limited complainant-respondent No. 1 (for brevity "the complainant") filed the criminal complaints under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter to be referred as "the NI Act"), inter-alia, pleading that the impugned cheques issued by the petitioners-accused in order to discharge their legal liability were dishonoured. They did not make the payment, despite legal notices within a statutory period. Thus, they have committed the pointed offence.
(3.) Taking cognizance of the complaints, the trial Court summoned the petitioners-accused to face the trial under section 138 of the NI Act, by way of impugned summoning order dated 5.3.2011. The similar impugned summoning orders were passed as well in the other connected cases instituted on similar private complaints.;