RAJESH BINDAL, J. - (1.) THIS order will dispose of three Criminal Misc. Nos. 36522-M of 2006, 36524-M of 2006 and 36526-M of 2006 as the common questions of law with similar facts are involved in these petitions.
(2.) THE facts have been extracted from Criminal Misc. No. 36522-M of 2006. The challenge in the present petition is to the order dated January 23, 2002 whereby complaint filed by the petitioner under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short "the Act") was dismissed in default and order March 31, 2005 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sirsa whereby application filed by the petitioner for restoration of the complaint was dismissed as not maintainable. Further challenge is to the order dated May 15, 2006 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sirsa whereby order passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sirsa was upheld.
(3.) BRIEFLY the facts are that petitioner filed complaint under Section 138 of the Act against respondent, who was directed to be summoned vide order dated July 18, 1991. But respondent could not be served through summons and warrants of arrest and ultimately he was declared a proclaimed offender vide order dated July 31, 1998. Thereafter on application of the petitioner, warrants of arrest were issued against respondent several times but the same were received back unserved. However, vide order dated January 23, 2002 passed by Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sirsa, the complaint was ordered to be dismissed in default, since no one turned up on behalf of the petitioner. Vide order dated March 31, 2005, the application for restoration of the complaint was also dismissed being not maintainable. In revision, order dated March 31, 2005 was upheld by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sirsa.;