1. In the above-captioned two petitions, quashing of impugned order of 13th September, 2011 (vide which respondent’s complaint, which was dismissed in default, has been restored for hearing) is sought. In the alternative, quashing of complaint No.1486/1 of 2007 under Sections 385/469/471/500/509/511/120-B and 34 of IPC and summoning order of 29th March, 2008 is sought on merits. However, during the course of hearing, aforesaid alternate prayer was not pressed and impugned order of 13th September, 2011 alone was assailed.

2. With the consent of learned counsel for parties, the above-captioned two petitions were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment as they are directed against the common impugned order of 13th September, 2011.

3. At the hearing, learned senior counsel for petitioners had contended that the impugned order takes note of precedents as noted in paragraph No.6 of the impugned order but fails to follow the precedents cited on strange reasoning as contained in paragraph No.13 of the impugned order, which reads as under: -

“Section 256 of Cr.P.C. deals with the non-appearance or death of the complainant. The opening word of the section 256