ORDER:

Accused in C.C.No.180 of 2014 on the file of learned Junior Civil Judge-cum-Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kothavalasa filed this criminal petition under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure seeking to quash the order dated 06.01.2021 passed by the learned Magistrate in Crl.M.P.No.1203 of 2020 in C.C.No.180 of 2014.

2. Respondent No.1 is State. Respondent No.2 is the de facto complainant before the learned trial Court in C.C.No.180 of

2014.

3. Sri A.Sai Naveen, learned counsel for petitioner and learned Assistant Public prosecutor for respondent No.1 and Sri Muralidhar Patnaik, learned counsel for respondent No.2 submitted arguments.

4. The following facts are to be noticed:

C.C.No.180 of 2014 is a case on a complaint filed by respondent No.2 herein wherein he alleged offences under Sections 138 and 142 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1882 against accused/petitioner herein. Complainant’s side evidence was adduced and it was closed on 22.02.2019. Thereafter, the accused was examined under Section 313 CrPC on 07.03.2019. Thereafter, the learned trial Court invited the accused to adduce evidence in defence. Since then, at least on 14 occasions accused obtained adjournments to produce evidence on his behalf. At one stage, he filed an application under Section 315 of Code of Criminal Procedure to permit him to depose. It seems on certain office objections that application was returned. At another stage, he filed an application under Section 243(2) of Code of Criminal Procedure seeking to summon two witnesses who are the respective Branch Managers of Banks where the accounts of accused and complainant were there. That application was also returned on certain office objections and that was never represented. After granting several opportunities to the accused, the learned trial Court found no evidence was forthcoming for defence. It closed the evidence on defence side and posted the case for hearing arguments. While the arguments were in progress, the accused filed a petition under Section 311 CrPC as per Crl.M.P.No.1203 of 2020 seeking to reopen the trial of the accused to enable him to adduce the evidence in defence. It is that application which was dismissed by the learned trial Court. The learned trial Court in the impugned order stated that accused has been unnecessarily protracting the case and his present application does not disclose what evidence he intended to adduce and therefore it thought that it was not in the interest of justice to permit him any further and accordingly it dismissed the said petition.

5. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that in a cheque dishonour case, given the facts of the case, the accused believed that the evidence of Branch Managers of both the Banks and the statements of Bank accounts of both the parties are necessary and it is in that regard, he wanted to adduce evidence and at the relevant date as the counsel for accused failed to attend the Court, necessary process could not be taken up properly and that resulted in the present impugned order and the Court may be generous enough to grant time bound opportunity to the accused to produce his evidence in defence.

6. As against it, learned counsel for complainant/respondent No.2 submits that it is a case of the year 2014 where summary trial was expected. The conduct of the accused is to protract the case for nearly a decade and despite several opportunities for the accused, he failed to produce evidence. To further delay the proceedings, he has come up with this petition and there are no merits in it and the same has to be dismissed.

7. In the context of the above facts and submissions on both sides while this Court acknowledges correctness of the trial Court’s reasoning about multiple opportunities being given to defence did not yield any result, this court is of the opinion that another chance may be given to the accused to adduce his evidence in defence. The attitude to protract the case shall be met by mulcting the accused with