AMIT GUPTA Vs. RAJESH RANKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this order I propose to dispose of both Criminal Misc. Petitions No. 9612-M and 20303-M of 1996 (O&M). Complainant Amit Gupta had filed a complaint under section 406, read with section 120-B of Indian Penal Code, against Rajesh Ranka et cetera. The learned Magistrate had summoned all the accused to face the trial. The accused had earlier filed a petition for quashing of complaint which was dismissed by the orders of the Court dated 28.2.1996. Thereafter the accused filed an application dated 16.3.1996 seeking exemption from personal appearance before the trial Court. This application was contested by the complainant and was finally disposed of by the learned trial Court vide its order dated 8.4.1996, wherein the trial Court granted exemption from personal appearance to accused Nos. 1 to 3 in the complaint, but it declined exemption to accused Nos. 5 and 6. This being so the company was to be represented at the relevant time by accused No. 4. However, subsequently another application was filed by accused Nos. 4 and 5, seeking exemption from personal appearance. This application was declined by the learned Magistrate vide order dated 21.9.1996.

(2.) BEING aggrieved from the order dated 8.4.1996, the complainant has filed petition before this Court being Criminal Misc. No. 9612--M of 1996, while the accused being dissatisfied with the order dated 21.9.1996 have filed Criminal Misc. No. 20303-M of 1996. Both these petitions have been filed under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short 'the Code').

(3.) ON the other hand, the contention of the learned counsel for the complainant-respondent is that the learned trial Court has rejected the application on sound reasons and in any case the trial Court had no jurisdiction to review its own order i.e. the order dated 8.4.1996, the learned counsel appearing for the complainant further submits that it is the accused who are trying to delay the proceedings before the trial Court by adopting all these tactics as earlier they had filed petition for quashing, which was dismissed. Even they have not appeared before the trial Court. As such, the proceedings before the trial Court are being un-necessarily delayed.