- (1.) The compendium of the facts & material, culminating in the commencement, relevant for deciding the instant petition and emanating from the record, is that, initially, complainant-respondent M/s Maharani Paints Private Limited (for brevity "the complainant") filed a criminal complaint (Annexure P7) against M/s Possible Automobiles Private Limited, its Directors Daljit Singh son of Gurdev Singh and petitioner Amarjit Singh Bhurjee son of Mohinder Singh, under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 as amended by the Banking, Public Financial Institutions and Negotiable Instruments Laws Amendment Act, 1988 (hereinafter to be referred as "the N.I.Act").
(2.) Taking cognizance of the complaint and considering the preliminary evidence on record, the trial Magistrate summoned the accused to face the trial of indicated offence, by means of impugned summoning order dated 25.3.2009 (Annexure P8).
(3.) Instead of submitting to the jurisdiction of the trial Magistrate, the petitioner-accused has also earlier filed a petition, bearing CRM No. M-37709 of 2010 to quash the same very impugned complaint and summoning order. The petition was dismissed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court (S.S.Saron, J.), vide order dated 22.12.2010 (Annexure P9), which, in substance, is as under:- "After hearing the learned counsel, it may be noticed that the petition has been filed after considerable delay from the passing of the order dated 25.03.2009 (Annexure P7) by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Faridabad. The complainant though in terms of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in National Small Industries Corporation Ltd. v. Harmeet Singh Paintal and another, 2010 3 SCC 330 is to show as to how the petitioner is in charge of and responsible for the conduct of the business of the company, however, there is considerable delay in approaching this court. The stage at which the proceedings are at the trial Court is not known. Normally once the criminal proceedings have been initiated, this court is exercise of its inherent jurisdiction would be reluctant to interference at an interlocutory stage. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances, the petitioner is permitted to withdraw the petition and raise contention as raised herein at the appropriate stage before the learned Magistrate itself. However, personal appearance of the petitioner on each date of hearing in the facts and circumstances shall remained dispensed with and he shall be permitted to appear through his counsel subject to the condition that the petitioner shall file an undertaking that his counsel shall appear on each date of hearing and he shall have no objection if the evidence of the complainant is recorded in his absence and he shall appear on such day/days when his presence is required by the learned trial Magistrate for which intimation shall be given to the counsel appearing from him. The criminal misc. petition is dismissed as withdrawn.";