GEETHA PANICKER Vs. LAGI EASO MATHEW

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Can a notice given to an Advocate appearing for the respondent in a criminal proceedings pending before a subordinate court be reckoned as a sufficient notice on such respondent of the proceedings initiated before this Court to quash such proceedings This is the crucial question which arises for consideration in this Crl. M.C. now.

(2.) First of all, a reference to the relevant facts. The petitioner in this case faces indictment in a prosecution under S.138 of the N.I. Act. That prosecution is initiated by the respondent herein by filing a private complaint. She has filed this application requesting this Court to invoke its powers under S.482 of the Cr. P.C. to quash the criminal prosecution initiated against her. The criminal complaint was filed as early as in 1999 and is registered as C.C. No.649/99 before the lower court. This Crl. M.C. was filed on 29.11.2000. When this case came up for hearing on 30.11.2000, urgent notice before admission was ordered in the Crl M.C. and an interim stay was ordered staying all further proceedings in the C.C. Months and years have rolled by. The stay has been extended from to time. But the proceedings still remain defective for the reason that the respondent / complainant has not yet been served.

(3.) It indeed is surprising that the respondent has not so far entered appearance. It is reasonable to assume that he must be aware of the stay as the learned Magistrate has not evidently proceeded further with the case after the interim stay was granted on 30.11.2000. I am at a loss to understand why the respondent, who is represented by a counsel before the Magistrate's Court which is only a stones throw away from this Court, has not so far entered appearance.