Rajbir Sehrawat, J. - (1.)This order shall dispose of three petitions i.e. CRM-M-17300 of 2017 - M/s Anant Tools (Unit No.II) Pvt. Ltd. and others Vs. Anant Tools Pvt. Ltd., Jalandhar, CRM-M-17352 of 2017 - M/s Anant Tools (Unit No.II) Pvt. Ltd. and others Vs.Swatantar Kumar Chopra and CRM-M-17353 of 2017 - M/s Anant Tools (Unit No.II) Pvt. Ltd. and others Vs. Anant Tools Pvt. Ltd., Jalandhar, involving identical facts, but involving different cheques, and thus resulting in three different complaints and three different
(2.)Broadly outlined, the facts of this case are that the respondent M/s Anant Tools Pvt. Limited filed complaint against the present petitioners, which is, incidentally, having a little bit similar name, i.e. M/s Anant Tools (Unit No.II) Pvt. Limited, and its Directors. The allegations in the complaint are that earlier the complainant and the accused had common business and were initially running a joint business. However, thereafter, the business was separated by the two. As a result, the assets, rights and liabilities were divided between the parties. An amount of Rs.18,52,253.00 was required to be paid by the accused No.1 to the complainant, as a result of the above said settlement, as involved in one complaint. There are other amounts also, which are involved in two other complaints. For discharge of the above said liability, the petitioners had issued cheque dated 08.01.2009 for the above said amount of Rs.18,52,253.00. For the amounts involved in other complaints, two other cheques were also issued. However, on being presented, the cheques were dishonored by the Bank. Resultantly, notices were issued to the petitioners/ accused on account of dishonor of all the three cheques, as involved in three complaints. Despite the notices, the amounts were not paid by the petitioners. This resulted into complaints being filed against the petitioners under Sec. 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. The summoning orders were issued against the present petitioners in all the three complaints.
(3.)During the pendency of the above said complaints against the petitioners, they filed applications for compounding of the offences in all the three complaints. However, since the complainant had not agreed for compounding the offences, therefore, the trial Court dismissed the applications moved by the petitioners, in all the three complaints.
;