Judgment

Thomas, J.—Leave granted.

2. A Sessions Judge, overlooking a legal interdict, interfered with an interlocutory order and created a situation for the trial magistrate to remain nonplussed. That order of the Sessions Judge was sought to be rectified at the behest of the appellant who, for that purpose, moved the High Court. But a learned single Judge of the High Court declined to interfere. Now the trial magistrate might be under a dilemma as to what is the proper course for him to adopt.

3. The facts lie in a narrow compass. Appellant company filed a criminal complaint before the court of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Bhopal (M.P.) against 15 accused for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The first accused in the com­plaint is a company having its registered office at Bhiwani in Haryana. Second accused is the Managing Director of that company. All the remaining accused are persons said to be associated with the first accused - company and they are all living in far distant places from Bhopal, some are in Haryana while some ­others are in Chandigarh and some others are in New Delhi. The magistrate took cognizance of the offence and issued