JUDGMENT M.L. Tahaliyani, J. 1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith and heard finally with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent - State. These Criminal Writ Petitions arise out of the orders passed by the Sessions Court, Greater Mumbai, in Criminal Revision Application Nos. 392/2012,393/2012 and 391/2012 respectively. The said Criminal Revision Applications challenged the orders passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate in Criminal Case Nos. l00/MISC/2008, 101/MISC/2008 andl02/MISC/2008. 2. At the outset, it may be noted here that the Criminal Complaint Cases pending on the file of Metropolitan Magistrate, 5th Court at Dadar, were originally filed in the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate, Tis Hazari Court, Delhi. The Complaint cases had been returned to the complainant in view of the order passed by the Delhi High Court and have been presented in the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate, 5th Court at Dadar. 3. The allegations in all the Criminal cases are more or less similar. It is, therefore, just and proper to state briefly the facts of one of the cases i.e. Case No. 100/MISC/2008. The petitioners are accused Nos. 1 & 2 respectively in the said Complaint cases and they are facing trial for the offence punishable under Section 420 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The process issued against them was challenged in Criminal Revision Application No. 392 of 2012. The learned Sessions Judge has dismissed the Revision Application. The present writ petition arises out the said rejection order. 4. The allegations against the petitioners in the Complaint cases, in brief, are that Petitioner No. 1 K-Lifestyle & Industries had filed two Complaint cases against the respondent - M/s. Lottee Holdings Private Limited for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. There were five more accused in addition to Respondent No. 1. It was alleged in the said complaints by Petitioner No. 1 that Petitioner No. 1 had advanced, by way of Inter Corporate Deposit, a sum of Rs. 1,40,00,000/- (Rs. One crore and forty lakh) to Respondent No. 1 -M/s. Lottee Holdings Private Limited. Respondent No. 1 had issued three post dated cheques for the said sum on ANZ Grindlays Bank, Conaught Place Branch of New Delhi, in favour of Shree Krishna Polyster Limited (earlier name of Petitioner No. 1 -K-Lifestyle & Industries Limited). 1,40,00,000/- (Rs. One crore and forty lakh) to Respondent No. 1 -M/s. Lottee Holdings Private Limited. Respondent No. 1 had issued three post dated cheques for the said sum on ANZ Grindlays Bank, Conaught Place Branch of New Delhi, in favour of Shree Krishna Polyster Limited (earlier name of Petitioner No. 1 -K-Lifestyle & Industries Limited). One more cheque for the sum of Rs. 7,81,151/- (Rs. Seven lakh eighty one thousand one hundred and fifty only) was issued by Respondent No. 1 in favour of Petitioner No. 1 towards interest. The said cheques had been dishonoured by the Bankers of Respondent No. 1 and, therefore, Petitioner No. 1 had filed Criminal Complaints against Respondent No. 1. 5. It is further alleged that Petitioner No. 2 - Pravin Tayal, as an authorized representative of Petitioner No. 1 had approached Respondent No. 1 at Delhi and represented that if Respondent No. 1 made the full payment of principal amount of Rs. 1,40,00,000/-, the complaints filed against Respondent No. 1 and others would be withdrawn and the cheques in question would be returned to Respondent No. 1. Respondent No. 1 had already made payment of Rs. 12,00,000/- (Rs. Twelve lakh). It is alleged that to maintain the business relations and settle the dispute amicably. Respondent No. 1 had paid the sum of Rs. 1,28,00,000/- (Rs. One crore and twenty eight lakh) by way of Pay Order to Petitioner No. 1. As such, Petitioner No. 1 was under obligation to withdraw the complaints and return the cheques in question. However, despite making full payment of principal amount, neither the cheques were returned to Respondent No. 1 nor the complaints were withdrawn by Petitioner No. 1. As such, in brief, it is alleged that Respondent No. 1 was induced with dishonest intention to part with an amount of Rs. 1,28,00,000/- by Petitioner No. 2 at the instance of Petitioner No. 1. On the basis of these allegations, as already stated above, the process was issued by the Metropolitan Magistrate of Tis Hazari Court, Delhi, against both the petitioners on the complaint made by Respondent No. 1. As stated earlier, the complaints have now been presented in the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate, 5th Court at Dadar, pursuant to the order passed by the Delhi High Court. The order of process was challenged before the Sessions Court and Revision Application has been dismissed. 6. As stated earlier, the complaints have now been presented in the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate, 5th Court at Dadar, pursuant to the order passed by the Delhi High Court. The order of process was challenged before the Sessions Court and Revision Application has been dismissed. 6. The learned counsel on behalf of both the parties were heard at length and the learned APP was heard on behalf of the respondent - State. It was canvassed on behalf of the Petitioners that Petitioner No. 2 - Pravin Tayal, had resigned from the Company of Petitioner No. 1 and that he had no role to play in the alleged offence. It was further contended that there was a purely civil dispute which has been brought to the Criminal Court by Respondent No. 1 to exert pressure on the petitioner to resolve civil dispute pending between the parties. 7. As far as other two Criminal Writ Petitions are concerned, the complaints are of similar nature, the parties are the same, the only difference is with regard to the amount in question. Therefore, it is not necessary to reproduce the contents of the other two complaints filed by Respondent No. 1 against the petitioners pending before the Metropolitan Magistrate, 5th Court at Dadar. 8. I have considered the arguments submitted by both sides and I have gone through the contents of the complaints filed by Respondent No. 1. I have also gone through the orders passed by the learned Sessions Judge, rejecting the applications. In this regard, it may be mentioned here that the element of dishonesty and inducement are the integral part of the offence of cheating. 9. It is specifically alleged by Respondent No. 1 in all the complaints that a false representation was made by Petitioner No. 2 on behalf of Petitioner No. 1 that the complaints would be withdrawn and the cheques will be returned to Respondent No. 1 if Respondent No. 1 made full payment of the principal amount. It is alleged that Respondent No.1 was induced to make the payment on the basis of the false representation. 10. In my opinion, the contents of the complaints prima facie disclose the offence punishable under Section 420 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and there is no scope to disturb the orders passed by the learned Sessions Judge. 10. In my opinion, the contents of the complaints prima facie disclose the offence punishable under Section 420 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and there is no scope to disturb the orders passed by the learned Sessions Judge. I do not find any substance in these Criminal Writ Petitions. Hence. I pass the following order: "The Criminal Writ Petitions are dismissed. Ad interim orders, if any, stand vacated. Prayer for continuation of the ad interim orders is rejected."