PREM LATA Vs. STATE & ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. praying for setting aside the judgment passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge in Crl. Revision Petition No. 122/2011 as well as order of acquittal passed by learned Metropolitan Magistrate vide order dated 23.07.2011. Notice of the petition was issued to the respondents who entered appearance through their counsel.

(2.) I have heard learned counsel for the parties. Perusal of the record shows that vide proceedings dated 23.07.2011, the learned M.M. noticing the conduct of the petitioner, who is complainant in CC No. 230/P/05, closed the post summoning evidence to be led by the complainant recording further that there was no post summoning evidence on record, thus, no incriminating evidence available which could be put to the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. He proceeded to acquit the accused who are respondents No. 2 & 3 before this Court.

(3.) WHILE supporting the impugned judgments passed by the learned Trial Court, learned counsel for the respondents No. 2 & 3 urged that Rajesh Agarwal's case has no application to the present case and complainant was required to lead post summoning evidence for the reason the order passed by the learned M.M. was prior to the decision of this Court in Rajesh Agarwal's case. When this Court questioned the learned counsel for the respondents No. 2 & 3 as to whether the respondents have exercised their right under Section 145(2) of the Negotiable Instruments Act, he submitted that he has instructions to state that the matter may be disposed of on merit without going into this aspect.