MIR ENGINEERS & BUILDERS Vs. SANJAY DIESELS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition under Section 561 -A Cr.P.C. has been preferred to set aside the order dated 11.05.2010 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jammu, in objections filed by the petitioner to the maintainability of the complaint under Section 138 read with Section 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 pending against him and the order dated 18.07.2012 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jammu, in the Criminal Revision Petition filed by the petitioner -accused against the aforesaid trial court order. The aforesaid complaint was originally filed before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kathua, by the complainant on 29.04.2008, The learned Magistrate took cognizance and ordered issuance of process. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner -accused caused appearance before the trial Magistrate on 20.05.2008 and furnished bail bonds and personal bonds. The case was adjourned to 08.07.2008 for recording the statement of accused under Section 242 Cr.P.C. On the subsequent dates the petitioner -accused absented from the proceedings, probably on account of some disturbances in the area.

(2.) MEANWHILE , he filed a 561 -A Cr.P.C. Petition No. 114/2008 before this Court seeking quashing of the complaint and the cognizance order passed by the learned Magistrate. Pursuant to order dated 14.08.2008 passed in that petition, the proceedings in complaint were stayed. Concomitant therewith, the petitioner also filed Criminal Transfer Application No. 28/2008 seeking transfer of the criminal complaint from the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kathua, to a court of competent jurisdiction at Srinagar on the ground of ailment of his mother and disturbance at Kathua. The aforesaid two petitions were heard together and were dismissed by order dated 25.05.2009 passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court. While deciding the 561 -A Cr.P.C. petition, the Court in paragraph 19 of the judgment, adverting to the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner -accused, observed as under:

(3.) AS regards the Criminal Transfer Application No. 28/2008, the Court ordered that the second ground taken therein was no more available as the situation had been restored to normalcy. As regards the first ground pleaded for transfer of the complaint, the Court ordered that the petitioner could seek exemption from his personal appearance before the trial court and directed that the trial court, on the motion being filed on behalf of the petitioner for dispensing with his personal attendance, shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders in case his engaged counsel appears on every date of hearing and subject to the condition that the petitioner will remain present on such hearing wherein personal appearance shall (not) be dispensable for progress of the case; otherwise mere presence on the dates of hearing can be taken care of by the presence of the engaged counsel.