- (1.) Leave granted.
(2.) Heard Mr. Huzefa Ahmadi, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants and Mr. Shamik Sanjanwala, learned counsel appearing for the respondents.
(3.) The only question raised in this appeal is as to whether the High Court should have stayed the trial by relying upon the judgment of this Court in Nitinbhai Saevatilal Shah & Anr. Vs. Manubhai Manjibhai Panchal & Anr., 2011 9 SCC 638. 3. The appellant Bank had filed a complaint before the competent Court under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 against respondent Nos.1 to 3. As the respondents wanted one additional party to be added to that complaint, they filed an application under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mehsana. That application having been rejected, a Criminal revision application was filed before the Principal Sessions Judge, Mehsana. That Judge confirmed the order passed by the Trial Court. Thereafter, the respondents filed an application before the High Court for quashing and setting aside the orders passed by the criminal courts. The High Court proceeded on an entirely different premise and disposed of the application filed by the respondents noting that the evidence in the matter had come to be recorded by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mehsana. The proceeding under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is a summary trial proceeding. Hence, the concerned successor Magistrate had to record the evidence de novo and any order passed on the basis of the evidence recorded by his predecessor was not valid. The High Court relied upon the above judgment in support thereof and passed an order directing a fresh recording of evidence. It is against this order of the High Court that this appeal, by special leave, has been filed.;