- (1.) Petitioner has filed this petition seeking quashing of the impugned order dated 25.10.2011 (Annexure P1) whereby the revision petition challenging the order dated 15.2.2007 (Annexure P9) passed by the trial Court was dismissed.
(2.) After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, I am of the opinion that the present petition deserves dismissal.
(3.) The case of the complainant, as per the complaint Annexure P8, in brief, is that the accused No.1- S.K. Luthra has borrowed ' 3,00,000/- from the complainant. In this regard, accused No.1-S.K.Luthra has executed two promissory notes i.e. one in the sum of ' 1,00,000/- and other in the sum of ' 2,00,000/-. Accused No.1-S.K.Luthra had,however, failed to repay the said amount. The complainant filed two civil suits for recovery of the said amount and the same were decreed by the trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 31.7.2004. Accused No.2- Tarsem Lal Jindal had appeared as an Advocate on behalf of the accused No.1-S.K.Luthra but thereafter had failed to appear on his behalf. Later on, accused No.3-Ravi Kant appeared in the suit on 30.1.2004 and sought leave to defend the suit. Along with an application filed by accused No.3, an affidavit of Sunil Kumar was filed. Accused No.1 was directed to appear personally in the Court and confirm the filing of the affidavit. However, accused No.1 failed to appear in the Court in person. Hence, the complaint under Sections 420,467,468,471 and 120-B IPC was filed.;