Akhlesh Kumar vs State

V.P. Vaish, J.

Crl. M.A. No. 3059/2014 (exemption)

Allowed subject to just exceptions.

Applications stand disposed of.

CRL. M.C. 916/2014

The petitioner Akhilesh Kumar has filed the present petition u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against the impugned order dated 7.11.2013 passed by Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi in complaint case CC No. 223/1/13 titled Parminder Kaur v. M/s. T and S Logistics. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that respondent No. 2 herein has filed a complaint for the offence u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Vide order dated 27.6.2012 passed by the Ld. MM Dwarka Courts Delhi, the petitioner was summoned for the offence u/s 138 of the NI Act. The summons were not served upon the petitioner and therefore the petitioner could not appear before the trial Court. Thereafter, vide order dated 30.8.12 the Trial Court issued bailable warrants against the petitioner and the matter was adjourned for 20.10.2012. The petitioner neither engaged any counsel nor appeared before the Trial Court on 20.10.2012 The Presiding Officer was on leave on 20.10.2012 and the matter was adjourned to 19.1.12013. However, due to some typographical error the appearance of counsel for the accused was recorded. The matter was adjourned to 19.1.2013. Again on 19.1.2013 the PO was on leave and the matter was adjourned to 30.3.2013. On 30.3.2013 bailable warrants were issued against the petitioner and the matter was adjourned to 26.6.2013. On 26.6.2013 bailable warrants qua the petitioner was received back with the report ''not met'' and non-bailable warrants were issued against the petitioner and the matter was adjourned to 23.8.2013. Vide order passed on 23.1.2014 the process was issued against the petitioner u/s 82 Cr.P.C. was received back and the matter was adjourned to 7.5.2014 for recording the statement of the process server.

Counsel for the petitioner urges that the procedure for issuance of process u/s 82 Cr.P.C. has not been followed by the learned Trial Court as the petitioner was never served with the summons of the complaint as the address furnished by the complainant was not correct.

The only grievance of the petitioner is that process u/s 82 Cr.P.C. has been issued without following the procedure prescribed under Chapter VI of the Cr.P.C.

Counsel for the petitioner undertakes that the petitioner shall appear before the Trial Court on the next date of hearing.

In view of the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner shall appear before the Ld. Trial Court the process u/s 82 Cr.P.C. is recalled and the petitioner is directed to appear before the Trial Court on 4.3.2014. The Trial Court is directed to proceed further in accordance with law.

The petition stands disposed of.

Crl. M.A. 3058/2014

Dismissed as infructuous.