Important Point - Court while exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr. P.C has to prevent such abuse of process of law and to seek the ends of justice.

DEEPAK MAHESHWARI, J.

1. This Criminal Misc. Petition has been preferred on behalf of the accused petitioners challenging the order dated 4.12.2015 passed by learned trial Court by which the application filed on behalf of the accused petitioners for recalling the summons issued to them while taking cognizance of the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act was rejected. Further, the order dated 5.8.2016 passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge No. 1, Kishangarhbas, Alwar has also been assailed whereby the learned revisional Court rejected the revision petition preferred by the accused petitioners against the order dated 4.12.2015.

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel appearing on behalf of complainant respondent No. 2 as also learned Public Prosecutor.

3. Briefly stated the relevant facts are that complainant respondent No. 2 Samarat filed a complaint against accused petitioners Rajesh Sharma and Shikha alleging therein that accused persons are working in the name of Ms. Pranavi Decorators, which is a partnership firm. The firm took a loan of Rs. 20,50,000/- from complainant on three occasions and including a sum of Rs. 3733/- falling due to them issued a cheque of Rs. 20,53,733/- in favour of the complainant, which on being submitted before the Bank was dishonoured. On the assurance given by the accused persons, cheque was again presented before the Bank but was again dishonoured for insufficiency of the funds. The complainant got notice issued to the accused persons through his counsel but the payment of the amount of cheque was not made by them, hence, the complaint was filed.

4. On the basis of the complaint, cognizance was taken by learned trial Court against accused petitioners for the offence under Section 138 of NI Act. An application was moved on 24.11.2015 on behalf of the accused petitioners seeking exemption for personal attendance as also for recalling the summons issued against them, which came to be rejected by learned trial Court observing that it has got no powers to review the order passed and to recall the summons. Being aggrieved by the order, accused petitioners preferred a criminal revision, which was also rejected by learned revisional Court.

5. Some observations regarding the facts, vital for decision of this Criminal Misc. Petition from the order passed by learned revisional Court are quoted below:-

^^12- bl izdkj ;g Li"V fLFkfr mHkj dj lkeus vkrh gS fd vfHk;qDrx.k }kjk viuh QeZ ds dkjksckj ds fy;s ifjoknh ls jde m/kkj yh xbZ gS vkSj QeZ ds uke ls gh vnk;xh ds isVs vfHk;qDrx.k }kjk pSd tkjh fd;k x;k gS vkSj pSd vuknfjr gksus ij vfHk;qDrx.k dks fof/kd uksfVl fnyk;s x;s gSa] ijUrq mlds ckotwn Hkqxrku ugha djus ij ;g ifjokn&i= izLrqr fd;k x;k gSA vfHk;qDrx.k dh ,slh dksbZ vkifRr ugha jgh gS fd os vfHk;qDrx.k QeZ ds Hkkxhnkj ugha gksa vFkok pSd tkjh fd;s tkus ds le; mudk QeZ ds dk;ksZ ls dksbZ lEcU/k ugha jgk gks] fQj Hkh mudks crkSj vfHk;qDr tksM fn;k x;k gksA ,sls esa gekjs fouez erkuqlkj tgka QeZ ds fy;s jkf'k m/kkj yh xbZ gks vkSj QeZ ds uke ls gh vnk;xh gsrq pSd fn;k x;k gks vkSj fQj QeZ ds Hkkxhnkjksa dks uksfVl fnyok fn;k x;k gks rks ml fLFkfr esa bl izdze ij ek= rduhdh :i ls QeZ dks uksfVl ugha fn;s tkus vkSj QeZ dks i{kdkj ugha cuk;s tkus ek= ls vfHk;qDrx.k dks vius izfrfuf/kd nkf;Ro ls eqDr ugha fd;k tk ldrk gS] D;ksafd pSd ij ^^QkWj izukohZ fMDVsV~jl-----------------vkWFkjkWbTM flxusVjh ¼vkbŒbZŒ,lŒ½** dk o.kZu gksrs gq;s gLrk{kj gSa] tks fd vkWFkjkWbTM flxusVjh gSaA bl rF; dks ugha ekuus dk U;k;ky; ds le{k dksbZ dkj.k ugha gSA vr% fo}ku vf/koDrk fuxjkdkjku@xSj&lky }kjk bl lEcU/k esa fn;s x;s rdksZ esa eSa dksbZ lkj ugha ikrk gwWA**

6. Learned counsel appearing for the accused petitioners has vehemently argued that it is an admitted factual matrix that the cheque in question was issued by the Firm M/s Pranavi Decorators in discharge of the debt payable to the complainant/respondent No. 2. But admittedly, no notice as required under Section