- (1.) LEARNED AGA has accepted notice on behalf of respondent no. 1.
(2.) HEARD Sri Prashant Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant and learned AGA for the State.
(3.) THIS petition under section 482 Cr.P.C.has been preferred against the order dated 12.5.2015 passed by Judicial Magistrate, Duddhi, Sonbhadra in Complaint case no. Nil/2015 (old No. 378/2012), under section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (in short, N.I.Act) PHI Seeds Pvt.Ltd. versus Balvant Kumar) returning the complaint filed by the applicant on the ground of delay. It appears that applicant/complainant filed a criminal complaint under section 138 N.I.Act against respondent no. 2 for dishonouring of the cheque. It appears that respondent no. 2/accused did not appear before the Metropolitan Magistrate at Hyderabad. Following the recent judgment of the Apex Court in Dashrath Rupsingh Rathod versus State of Maharashtra and another, 2014 LawSuit(SC) 589, the Magistrate at Hyderabad passed the following order : - "Authorized person of the complainant company is called absent. The learned counsel for the complainant is present and filed petition under section 256 of Cr.P.C. and allowed. So far summons not served on the accused. Hence the case is at the summons stage. In view of the latest judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court which is reported in 2014 (2) ALD Crl. 190 (SC), the complaint maybe returned to the complainant to present the saem before proper proper Jurisdiction where the accused is residing in order to file the same before appropriate Court in view of above cited Judgment direction. Office is directed to return the complaint to the complainant with proper Index. Hence the complaint is herewith returned to the complainant under proper identification and acknowledgment to present the same before the proper Court having Jurisdiction to try the matter.";