ÀITEM NO.8 COURT NO.5 SECTION II

S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl) No(s).6226/2005

(From the judgement and order dated 13/07/2005 in MRA No. 120776/2005 in CRLMA No. 5206

/2005

of The HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD)

M/S.MANGLICK CHEMICALS & ANR. Petitioner(s)

VERSUS

ABHINAV CHATURVEDI & ANR. Respondent(s)

(With appln(s) for ex-Parte stay)

Date: 16/12/2005 This Petition was called on for hearing today.

CORAM :

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK BHAN

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE TARUN CHATTERJEE

For Petitioner(s) Mr. Narender Kabra, Adv.

Mr. Mukesh Verma, Adv.

Mr. Manish Shanker, Adv.

Mr. Pankaj K. Singh, Adv.

Mr. Yash Pal Dhingra,Adv.

For Respondent(s)

UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following

O R D E R

A complaint under Section 138 of the N.I. Act was filed by the petitioners

against respondent

No.1. In May, 2005, petitioners filed an application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. se

eking a direction

from the High Court that the matter should be expedited and disposed of at an early date

. The High

Court, without issuing notice to respondent No.1, by its order dated 16th May, 2005 allowed t

he petition

and directed the ACJM, Firozabad to expedite and conclude the trial with

in a period of six months

without giving any unnecessary adjournment to either of the parties. Res

pondent No.1 moved an

application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for recalling the order dated 16th May, 2005.

By the impugned

order the High Court has recalled its earlier order by observing that the earlier order had b

een passed

without issuing notice to respondent No.1 and restored the case to its original number so t

hat the case

can be disposed of after hearing both the parties. We agree with the co

unsel for the petitioners

that the earlier order dated 16th May, 2005 was innocuous order and could have been passed. S

ince the

High Court has taken the view that the earlier order had been passed

without issuing notice to

respondent No.1 and recalled its order to pass a fresh order after hearing both the part

ies, we are not

inclined to interfere with the impugned order of the High Court as it is still open to the

High Court to

pass the same order after hearing both the sides. We would request the High Court to d

ispose of the

matter at an early date.

The Special Leave Petition is disposed of accordingly.

(Parveen Kr. Chawla) (Anand Si

ngh)

Court Master Court Ma

ster