JUDGMENT :

Ashwani Kumar Singh, J.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

2. This application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner for directing the respondent-authorities to take proper action in connection with Trial No. 533 of 2017 arising out of Complaint Case No. 2001 of 2013 pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Muzaffarpur in which processes under Sections 82 and 83 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short 'Cr.P.C.') have been issued against respondent no. 7.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the complaint was filed in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Muzaffarpur on 29.07.2013 under Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Vide order dated 29.07.2013 itself, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Muzaffarpur transferred the case to the court of Shri Mithilesh Kumar, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Muzaffarpur under Section 192 of the Cr.P.C. for inquiry and disposal of the case in accordance with law. Thereafter, the statement of the complainant was recorded on oath under Section 200 of the Cr.P.C. In course of inquiry conducted under Section 202 of the Cr.P.C., two witnesses were examined, whereafter vide order dated 24.01.2014, the learned Judicial Magistrate summoned respondent no. 7 to face trial for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Since respondent no. 7 did not appear before the court after issuance of summons, bailable warrant of arrest was issued vide order dated 20.10.2014. Thereafter, non-bailable warrant of arrest was issued against him vide order dated 25.11.2014. As the respondent no. 7, who was summoned to face trial did not appear in spite of issuance of bailable and non-bailable warrant of arrests, the order of proclamation was made under Section 82 of the Cr.P.C. on 11.07.2016. After order of proclamation, vide order dated 03.04.2017, order of attachment was issued against respondent no. 7 under Section 83 of the Cr.P.C. Thereafter, vide order dated 18.10.2017, respondent no. 7 was declared absconder and the office was directed to keep the record in safe custody.

4. He submitted that all the steps taken by the learned Magistrate to ensure presence of the accused before the court have failed to yield any result and the respondent no. 7 is still evading to appear before the court. He contended that in view of the willful defiance of the orders passed by the Jurisdictional Magistrate by the accused, a direction be issued to the official respondents to immediately arrest respondent no. 7 and produce him before the court in connection with Complaint Case No. 2001 of 2013.

5. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the orders passed by the court below, as contained in Annexure-1 to the present application, I find that though summons was issued against respondent no. 7 in the complaint case in question, vide order dated 24.01.2014, the service report of summons was never received. In absence of any service report, the court proceeded ahead and issued bailable and non-bailable warrant of arrest against respondent no. 7. Even the bailable and non-bailable warrants of arrest were never served upon the respondent no. 7, but he was declared a proclaimed offender and, thereafter, the order of attachment was also passed against him.

6. The steps taken by the court in order to ensure appearance of the accused were without verifying the fact as to whether the summons issued were ever served upon the respondent no. 7 or not.

7. The well settled legal principle and the provision of law for securing appearance of the accused persons in a criminal case have not been followed. The cardinal principle that exercise of judicial authority is not show of strength, but a duty to be performed with humility and firmness appears to have been completely lost while passing orders in the present case.

8. It would