GAJANAND GOYAL Vs. ASIYA BEGUM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

(2.) The petitioners challenge legality of proceedings initiated on the basis of a complaint filed by the respondent alleging infraction of Sec. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. It is submitted that the complaint is not maintainable against the petitioners as the necessary ingredients of Ss. 138 and 141 of the Act have not been established even for the purpose of taking cognizance. The submissions are refuted by learned counsel for the respondent. In view of the fact that controversy as raised in this petition has to be effectively adjudicated by leading evidence, we are not inclined to entertain this petition at the present juncture.

(3.) A submission is made by Mr. U.U Lalit, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners would find it difficult to appear on each date when the matter is filed up by the trial court. Considering the nature of the controversy, we direct that in case application in terms of Sec. 205 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is filed, the trial court to do well to dispense with the personal attendance of the petitioners. It shall, however, stipulate the terms and conditions in terms of sub-sec. (2) of Sec. 205 CrPC. If any attempt is made to prolong the proceedings by taking advantage with the order dispensing with personal attendance, it shall be open to the court to pass such order as is felt necessary.