Ashwani Kumar Singh, J. – Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the State and learned counsel for the complainant opposite party no.2.

2. This application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short ‘the Cr.P.C.’) has been filed by the petitioner for quashing of the order dated 6.6.2016 passed by the learned Sub Judge-XIV-cum-Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patna by which he has issued a composite order under Sections 82 and 83 of the Cr.P.C. against the petitioner in Complaint Case No.3404(C) of 2007 filed by the Agriculture Insurance Company India Ltd. (for short ’the complainant’).

3. Mr. Ashutosh Nath, learned counsel for the petitioner argued that after taking cognizance of the offences punishable under Sections 409, 467, 468, 471 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code the learned Magistrate in exercise of powers conferred under Section 204 of the Cr.P.C. summoned the petitioner vide order dated 6.3.2009 to face trial. The summoning order was never served upon the petitioner and in absence of service report vide order dated 28.10.2010 bailable warrant of arrest was issued and in absence of service report of bailable warrant of arrest vide order dated 22.1.2011 non-bailable warrant of arrest was issued against him. He submitted that the petitioner was not aware about the pendency of the complaint case against him till a composite order under Sections 82 and 83 of the Cr.P.C. was passed against him on 6.6.2016. He submitted that the orders issuing bailable warrant of arrest, non-bailable warrant of arrest, declaring the petitioner a proclaimed offender and directing for attachment of his property are all bad in law in view of the fact that there was no report that the petitioner was deliberately avoiding his appearance before the court. Placing reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in Inder Mohan Goswami and Another vs. State of Uttaranchal and Others, (2007) 12 SCC 1, he submitted that all coercive steps taken against the petitioner after issuance of summons are patently bad in law and not fit to be sustained.

4. Per contra, learned counsel for the complainant opposite party no.2 submitted that the petitioner is trying to take undue advantage of the technicalities of law. He submitted that the petitioner was very much aware about the pendency of the criminal case against him, but was evading appearance before the Court and, thus, the court was left with no other option but to take coercive steps against him in order to secure his attendance before the Court.

5. Mr. Jharkhandi Updhyay, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State has supported the contentions of the learned counsel appearing for the opposite party no.2. He submitted that there is tendency among the accused persons to delay the trial by avoiding to receive notice.

6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

7. The entire order-sheet of Complaint Case No.3404(C) of 2007 has been brought on record as Annexure-1 to this petition. In order to appreciate the submissions made on behalf of the parties it would be proper to briefly state the manner in which the case proceeded. On 6.3.2009 while directing the office clerk to issue summons, the case was adjourned to 18.4.2009. Since 18.4.2009 the proceedings of the Court of Magistrate are narrated hereinbelow in tabular form: