JUDGMENT

%

Vide impugned order of 27th July, 2012, petitioner No.1 through its three partners has been summoned as accused in a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 filed by respondent- complainant. Vide order of 22nd April, 2013 petitioners’ application for transfer of complaint case in question to the court of competent territorial jurisdiction stands rejected by trial court while observing that the question of jurisdiction was urged by petitioners before this Court, but they had withdrawn the petition unconditionally.

Vide order of 27th August, 2013 petitioners’ revision petition against order of 22nd April, 2013 stands dismissed. Vide order of 13th August, 2014 trial court has listed the complaint case in question alongwith three other similar complaint cases for evidence.

In this petition, quashing of afore-noted orders is sought while relying upon Apex Court’s decision in Dashrath Rupsingh Rathod v. State of Maharashtra (2014) 9 SCC 129. However, at the hearing, learned senior counsel for petitioners had placed reliance upon Apex Court’s decision in J.V. Baharuni v. State of Gujarat, (2014) 10 SCC 494 to seek denovo trial by raising the bar under Section 326 (3) of Cr.P.C.. It was vehemently asserted by learned senior counsel for petitioners that the complaint in question was tried as a summary case.

It was pointed out that the Magistrate, who had framed the Notice under Section 251 of Cr.P.C. has been transferred and the successor Magistrate cannot act upon and proceed with the summary trial and has to start the proceedings denovo. To assert so, attention of this Court was drawn by learned senior counsel for petitioners to an order of 5th February, 2014 in CRL.M.C.621/2014 titled Modelama Exports Ltd. v. Trimurti Exports and Ors. (Annexure P-10) whereby the cross- examination of respondent-complainant was confined to the plea of defence taken by petitioners at the time of recording of the statement under Section 251 of Cr.P.C.. Thus, it was submitted that in view of the dictum of the Apex Court in J.V. Baharuni (supra), denovo trial has to take place and once it begins, then in view of the Apex Court’s dictum in Dashrath Rupsingh (supra), the complaint case in question has to be returned back to respondent-complainant for refiling before the court of competent territorial jurisdiction within thirty days of said return.

Learned counsel for respondent-complainant seriously disputed that the summary trial proceedings have been undertaken in the complaint case in question. During the course of hearing, attention of this Court was drawn to trial court record to show that the chief-examination of respondent-complainant is a full-fledged one and it does not merely contain the substance of the evidence, but is a full-fledged chief-

examination.

Regarding the curtailment of the cross-examination of respondent-

complainant to the plea of defence taken by petitioners in Notice under Section 251 of Cr.P.C., it was submitted that since full-fledged chief- examination of respondent-complainant is already on record and respondent-complainant is still under cross-examination, so there can be a full-fledged cross-examination of respondent-complainant de hors order of 5th February, 2014 (Annexure P-10).

Regarding the mode of trial in cases under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, the directions issued by Apex Court in J.V. Baharuni (supra) are recapitulated as under: -

“60. However, to summarise and answer the issues raised herein, the following directions are issued for the courts seized of with similar cases:

60.1. All the subordinate courts must make an endeavour to expedite the hearing of cases in a time-bound manner which in turn will restore the confidence of the common man in the justice-delivery system. When law expects something to be done within prescribed time-limit, some efforts are required to be made to obey the mandate of law.

60.2. The learned Magistrate has the discretion under Secti