JUDGMENT : M.R. Shah, J. As common question of facts and law arise in both these petitions, and are between the same parties, they are being heard together and decided and disposed of by this common judgment and order. 2. Criminal Misc. Application No. 319 of 2009 has been preferred by the petitioner - original accused No.3 to quash and set aside the impugned complaint being Criminal Case No.1401 of 2008 filed by the respondent No. 2 - original complainant, under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, pending in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 7, Ahmedabad. 2.1. Criminal Misc. Application No.323 of 2009 has been preferred by the petitioner - original accused No.13 to quash and set aside the impugned complaint being Criminal Case No.1398 of 2008 filed by the respondent No.2 - original complainant, under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, pending in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.7, Ahmedabad. 3. The impugned complaints have been lodged by the respondent No.2 herein - original complainant - State Bank of India, against the petitioner herein - original accused Nos.3 and 13 - The Visnagar Nagrik Sahakari Bank Limited, and others for the offences punishable under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. In the said complaints, the learned Magistrate has directed to issue process against the petitioner herein - original accused No. 13 also. Hence, the petitioner - original accused Nos. 3 and 13 has preferred both these petitions under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 4. Mr.Dharmesh Shah, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the respective petitioner - original accused Nos. 3 and 13 - Bank has vehemently submitted that apart from the fact that the petitioner Bank had never issued any cheque and was functioning as Clearing Agent for Classic Bank, who is also one of the co-accused in the impugned complaints as per the instructions given by Reserve Bank of India. Even no notice has been issued by the original complainant as required under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Therefore, it is submitted that in absence of any statutory notice as required under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, no complaint against the petitioner shall be maintainable. Therefore, it is requested to quash and set aside the impugned complaint qua petitioner herein - original accused Nos.3 & 13. 5. Therefore, it is submitted that in absence of any statutory notice as required under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, no complaint against the petitioner shall be maintainable. Therefore, it is requested to quash and set aside the impugned complaint qua petitioner herein - original accused Nos.3 & 13. 5. Mr.Hardik Soni, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent No.2 - original complainant is not in a position to dispute and/or is not disputing that no statutory notice under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act has been issued/served upon the petitioner herein - original accused Nos. 3 & 13. Therefore, as such he is not in a position to satisfy this Court as to how in absence of any statutory notice upon the petitioner herein - original accused Nos.3 and 13, as required under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the impugned complaint is maintainable against the petitioner herein. However, he has submitted that even subsequently the petitioner herein can be arraigned as an accused in exercise of powers under section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 6. Mr.L.B. Dabhi, learned Additional Public Prosecutor has requested to pass appropriate order in the facts and circumstances of the case. 7. Heard the learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties at length. 8. It is required to be noted that main criminal complaints have been filed against the petitioner herein - accused Nos. 3 & 13 and others for the offence punishable under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. It is not in dispute that the petitioner herein is arraigned as an independent accused. Therefore, before filing/instituting any complaint against the petitioner herein under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the petitioner herein - original accused Nos.3 and 13, was required to be served with statutory notice as required under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act and only thereafter, after the prescribed period as mentioned in section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and on non-compliance of the said statutory notice, complaint against the petitioner for the offence under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments act can be filed/instituted. In the present case it is an admitted position that before filing/instituting the impugned complaint against the petitioner herein - original accused Nos.3 and 13, for the offence under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, no notice as required under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act has been issued and served upon the petitioner herein - original accused Nos. 3 and 13. Under the circumstances, the requirement of section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act are not complied with and hence the impugned complaint against the petitioner herein - original accused Nos.3 and 13, for the offence under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act would not be maintainable. Under the circumstances, in absence of any statutory notice the learned Magistrate ought not to have taken cognizance of the complaint against the petitioner herein - original accused Nos. 3 & 13, for the offence under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. Under the circumstances, the impugned complaints against the petitioner herein - original accused Nos. 3 and 13, are not maintainable for want of statutory notice under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and to continue the impugned criminal proceedings against petitioner herein - original accused Nos.3 and 13, would be unnecessary harassment and abuse of process of law and court. Under the circumstances, this is a fit case to exercise powers under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash and set aside the impugned complaint QUA petitioner herein - original accused Nos. 3 and 13. 9. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, both these petitions are allowed. The impugned complaints being Criminal Case No.1401 of 2008 and Criminal Case No.1398 of 2008 filed by the respondent No.2 - original complainant - State Bank of India, under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, pending in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.7, Ahmedabad, are hereby quashed and set aside QUA petitioner herein - original accused Nos.3 and 13 in the aforesaid respective complaints - The Visnagar Nagrik Sahakari Bank Limited, only. However, the same shall be without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the original complainant/prosecution to proceed with the trial against the other accused. The learned trial court to proceed further with the trial against the other accused in accordance with law and on merits and without in any way being influenced by the present order. However, the same shall be without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the original complainant/prosecution to proceed with the trial against the other accused. The learned trial court to proceed further with the trial against the other accused in accordance with law and on merits and without in any way being influenced by the present order. Rule is made absolute in each of the petitions. Petition Allowed.