K.A. Abdul Rehaman vs Mahadev

V.G. Sabhahit, J.—These two Criminal petitions u/s 482 Cr.P.C. are filed against the order passed by JMFC, Dandeli in private complaint Nos. 24/2006 & 25/2006 wherein the Learned JMFC has taken cognizance of the offence and recorded sworn statement of the complainant and issued summons to the petitioner for the offence punishable u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Since the summons could not be served, NBW has been issued for appearance of the petitioner.

It is clear that when cognizance has been taken and sworn statement is recorded and on the basis of the sworn statement, summons have been issued to the petitioner, unless the accused petitioner appears and contends before the Trial Court that notice is not issued to the correct address of the petitioner and there is non compliance of the provisions of Section 138 Cr.P.C, petitioner cannot contend that he has got a good defence and therefore, proceedings should be quashed. The question as to whether notice is issued to the correct address has to be decided during trial and not at this stage that too, even before appearance of the petitioner before the Trial Court and therefore, I hold that no ground is made out for quashing the proceedings in C C Nos. 684/2006 & 685/2006.

The Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner in both the petitioner submitted that NBW has been issued and petitioner will be arrested and produced before the Court. It is open to the petitioner to appear before the Court even before the date fixed for return of NBW and make an application for recalling of NBW as NBW is issued only for securing presence of the respondent before the Trial Court and said application shall be considered by the Trial Court forthwith.

Accordingly, Criminal Petitions are disposed of.