MALHOTRA HANDLOOMS Vs. HARI OM YARNS P LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present petition under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, has been filed by the petitioners for quashing of the order dated November 16, 1994 passed by the learned judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Ludhiana and the orders dated December 10, 1994 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana. The aforesaid orders have been appended an Annexures P-1 and P-2 respectively, with the present petition.

(2.) A complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was filed by the complainant-respondent against the petitioners. The petitioners were summoned. Thereafter, the learned trial Magistrate framed a charge. Subsequently, the petitioners filed an application before the trial Magistrate for dropping of the proceedings and summoning the record to the Post Office. The aforesaid application was duly considered by the learned trial Magistrate and vide order dated November 16, 1994 dismissed the same as misconceived. It was observed by the learned trial magistrate that since the applications for dropping of the criminal proceedings have been filed by the present petitioners at the proper stage i. e. prior to the framing of the charge, therefore, no case for dropping of the proceedings at the later stage arose. However, it was observed by the learned trial Magistrate that the accused/present petitioners would be at liberty to lead evidence showing that no case against them was made out. The aforesaid order is appended as Annexure P-l with the petition. The petitioners felt aggrieved. The filed a revision petition before the learned Additional Sessions Judge. The learned Additional Sessions Judge also agreed with the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st class and vide order dated December 19, 1994 dismissed the revision petition. Accordingly, the petitioners have now approached this Court through the present petition.

(3.) I have gone through the contents of the petition and have also gone through both the orders passed by the Courts below. In may considered opinion, no case for exercising my inherent powers under section 482 Cr. P. C. is made out. The petitioners, as observed by the learned Courts below, would be at liberty to lead their evidence showing that a notice, as required under the provisions of Negotiable Instruments act, was not served upon them. Of course, that would be at the stage of defence.