- (1.) The accused petitioners have preferred this Criminal Revision Petition against the impugned order dated 22.03.2011 passed by the trial court in Cr. Regular Case No. 3431/2010 by which an application filed on behalf of the accused petitioners was dismissed.
(2.) The brief relevant facts for the disposal of this revision petition are that the complainant non-petitioner filed a criminal complaint for the offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act against the accused petitioners before the trial court and on behalf of them an application was filed on 15.03.2011 with a prayer that the complaint filed by the complainant non-petitioner is liable to be dismissed on the grounds stated in the application. The first ground taken by the accused petitioners in this application was that in the light of the view expressed by the Supreme Court in the case Damodar S. Prabhu v. Sayed Baba Lal H, 2010 AIR(SC) 1907the complaint is liable to be dismissed as the complainant non-petitioner has also filed some other complaints for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act against the accused petitioners in other courts and although all these complaints relate to the same transaction the non-petitioner has not filed any affidavit and thus he has not complied the mandate given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The other ground taken in the application was that the complainant non petitioner has not filed the list of witnesses and thus the learned trial court has committed illegality in issuing process to the accused petitioners.
(3.) The complainant non-petitioner did not file written reply to the application and the learned trial court after hearing the parties, dismissed the application by passing impugned order. Feeling aggrieved, the accused petitioners by means of this revision petition have challenged the impugned order.;