(1.) THERE is a chequered history in the matter between he parties. The private respondents-complainants are dragged to this court time and again including the trial court by way of different type of applications. The intention behind it is only to delay the proceedings which are pending before the trial court as far as possible.
(2.) ON earlier occasion also, Criminal complaint No. 282/97 was filed against the present petitioners by the respondent complainant. There in a very intelligent manner, the complainant was duped by the accused by entering into compromise. Thereupon, the complainant withdrew the complaint in terms of compromise and accordingly, the same was dismissed as withdrawn by the trial court on 20. 9. 97. As per the compromise, five cheques of Rs. 11 lakhs each were drawn in favour of the respondent complainant. When the said cheques were deposited by the Complainant in the bank, the same bounced back on account of insufficient funds in the bank's account of the accused. After giving due notice, the respondent complainant was obliged to file another complaint before the court of Judicial Magistrate No. 2 (South), Udaipur against the present accused for the offence u/sec. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short `the Act') which was registered as criminal complaint No. 387/98.
(3.) IN my considered opinion, this fact itself was sufficient to dismiss this petition because the accused persons were required to disclose this fact in this petition that on earlier occasion, they had come against the order passed by the learned Magistrate framing charge u/sec. 138 of the Act and those petitions were dismissed. However, learned counsel Mr. Mathur submitted that it was not necessary for them to mention the aforesaid fact because they have filed this petition against the impugned order dated 22. 2. 2001 passed by the learned Magistrate dismissing their application to dismiss the complaint on the ground that cheques were not submitted to the bank on the agreed dates.