( 1 ) THIS case demonstrates as to how Sh. Prem Kumar the learned Additional Sessions judge consciously tried to ignore the verdict given by Hon ble Supreme Court in K. M. Mathews Vs. State of Kerela (1992) 1 supreme Court 217 and dismissed the applications of the petitioners seeking recall of the summoning order for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the negotiable Instrument Act vide order dated 26. 4. 2003 by conveniently taking the shelter under the judgment of this Court delivered in mohd. Hashim Masood Vs. State reported in 2000 (1) JCC Delhi 24 as if he was bound by the view taken by the High Court and not by the Supreme Court. on the proposition of law whether the accused is entitled to move the Magistrate for dropping the proceedings in a complaint case even after the process of summon has. been issued against him.

( 2 ) FACTS germane for the proposition of la are like this:- m/s. SBI Capital Markets. Ltd. filed a complaint under Section 138 of negotiable Instrument Act against M/s. Prakash Industries Ltd and Ors. its managing director, Vice President (General) and two General Managers. They were summoned as accused vide order dated 9. 7. 99 by the Met