Rekha Mittal, J. - (1.) CHALLENGE in this appeal is to the order dated 14.5.2013 passed by the Judicial Magistrate whereby the complaint filed by the appellant -bank under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short "the Act") has been dismissed for want of prosecution.
(2.) COUNSEL for the appellant submits that the appellant had been pursuing its remedy religiously without any default but due to an inadvertent mistake in noting down the date, the representative of the appellant -bank could not put in appearance on the date fixed i.e. 14.5.2013. It is further submitted that on that day, the proceedings were pending for securing presence of the accused through non -bailable warrants which were not issued by the Ahlmad of the Court on earlier date i.e. 27.4.2013. The last submission made by counsel is that the trial court did not advert itself if the presence of the complainant was required for progress in the proceedings or the same could be dispensed with keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case in the light of judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court of India in The Associated Cement Co. Limited vs. State of Madhya Pradesh : 2004(9) SCC 727. Counsel for the respondent, on the contrary, submits that the respondents have already discharged their liability towards the cheque amount as the payment in regard thereof has been made. It is further submitted that no useful purpose would be served by continuation of the criminal proceedings in view of later developments.
(3.) IN reply, counsel for the appellant has refuted the contention of counsel for the respondents in regard to payment of money or discharge of liability. It is further submitted that even otherwise, the respondents cannot escape their liability by payment of cheque amount during pendency of the proceedings.;