SHIV KUMAR Vs. MOHAMMAD SAGIR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment dated May 20,1996 passed by Shri Sanjay Garg, M.M., Delhi.

(2.) Facts giving rise to the present appeal, in brief, are that Shiv Kumar, appellant, filed a complaint u/S. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act against Mohd. Saghir, respondent 1 and M/s. Mohd. Rafiq Mohd. Shafiq & Co., respondent 2, on 11.11.91 and vide order dated July 4, 1994, both these respondents were summoned as accused for 9.9.94 by the trial Magistrate. Respondent 1 who appeared on 9.9.94 was admitted to bail. On that date itself appellant filed an application u/S. 319 Cr. P.C. and on that application Mohd. Atiq, Mohd. Abid, Mohd. Javed and Mst. Jamila Khatoon, respondents 3 to 6 being partners of respondent 2, were further ordered to be summoned as accused for 2.3. 95 by the trial magistrate vide order dated 16.1.95. Thereafter on 14.2.96 respondent 1 put in appearance along with Shri M.P. Singh, Advocate and the latter made a statement that he will be producing the remaining respondents on the next date of hearing and the case was postponed to 27.3.96 for appearance of respondents 3 to 6. On that date respondents 3 & 5 appeared before the trial Magistrate and they too were admitted to bail. An application for seeking exemption was filed on behalf of respondents 4 & 6 through counsel and the same was allowed and the case was posted for 22.4.96 for appearance of respondents 4 & 6 did not appear, non-bailable warrants were ordered to be issued against them for 20.5.96. Thereafter on the application filed on behalf of respondents 4 & 6 for cancellation of non-bailable warrants, the case was taken up on 23.4.96 and the order for issuing of non-bailable warrants against both of them was recalled and they were admitted to bail. However, on 20.5.96 when respondents 1 & 3 to 6 were present and the complainant was absent, the case was ordered taken up again at 2 PM and at 2.20 PM following order was passed by the trial Magistrate : "Present : None for the complainant. All the accused are present. The presence of the complainant is required as he was supposed to supply copies of the complaint to the accused. Complaint is dismissed in default. Accused are discharged.

(3.) It is this order which is under challenge in this appeal.