SANDEEP MEHTA,J. - (1.) This bunch of misc. petitions preferred under Section 482 Cr.P.C., 1973 by the accused as well as the complainants have emerged on account of a common controversy in relation to similar complaints preferred in the court of learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Phalodi under section 138 of the N.I. Act and is thus, being decided together by this order.
(2.) Numerous complaints under section 138 of the N.I. Act came to be filed in the year 2011 by Sarva Shri Kamal Kishore Joshi, Sunil Chhangani and Mangi Lal Purohit (the complainants) against Nirmal Nilesh and Ena Nitin Bhai (the accused). On 16.1.2011, the trial court took cognizance against the respective accused and summoned them to face trial for the offence under section 138 of the N.I. Act. The accused put in appearance and were enlarged on bail. During pendency of the proceedings, the accused filed separate applications in the respective complaints in light of the pronouncement made by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dashrath Rupsingh Rathod v. State of Maharashtra and Anr. reported in 2014 Cr.L.R. (SC) 842 , claiming that the court at Phalodi lacked territorial jurisdiction and the complaints should be returned to the complainants. The learned ACJM, Phalodi passed separate orders dated 30.1.2015 in each of the complaints and directed that the complaints in original be returned to the respective complainant for being prosecuted in the competent court. The complainants thereupon preferred separate misc. petitions under Section 482 Cr.P.C., 1973 in this Court being aggrieved of the order dated 30.1.2015 whereby, their complaints were directed to be returned to them. These misc. petitions were tagged together in a bunch and were listed before this Court on 15.12.2015 after service upon the accused party. On that day, learned counsel for the petitioners complainants sought liberty to withdraw the misc. petitions so that the complainants could move applications in the concerned court for revival of the complaints in light of the amendment introduced in the N.I. Act. The counsel representing the accused did not oppose the said prayer. Accordingly, this Court decided the misc. petitions by a common order dated 15.12.2015 in the following terms: "Learned counsel for the petitioners seeks to withdraw the misc. petitions praying that liberty be given to the petitioners to file an application before the concerned Magistrate for revival of their complaints in the said Court in light of the recent amendment brought around in the Negotiable Instruments Act. The prayer so made is justified. The misc. petitions thus stand disposed of as withdrawn with the liberty as prayed for. In case the petitioners move an application before the concerned Magistrate in the above terms, the same shall be decided in light of amendment effected in the Negotiable Instruments Act. The bar of limitation if any shall not operate against the petitioners as they were pursuing their cases before this Court with due diligence. The trial court returned the complaints filed by the petitioners by the impugned order. The original orders passed by the trial court have been filed along with these misc. petitions. Thus for ensuring that the petitioners are able to file the complaints afresh before the trial court as directed above in light of the recent amendment in the Negotiable Instruments Act, it is directed that the original orders passed by the trial court shall be returned back to the petitioner's counsel after retaining a certified copy thereof on the record."
(3.) While deciding these misc. petitions, this Court gave liberty to the respective complainants to move applications for revival of their complaints while lifting the bar of limitation if any. Pursuant thereto, the complainants filed applications for revival of their complaints and the trial court passed an order dated 22.12.2015, directing re-registration of all the complaints at their original number and resummoned the accused to face trial. The counsel representing the accused appeared in the trial Court on 3.2.2016 and on 14.3.2016 respectively and prayed for exemption of personal presence of the accused. Finally, when despite being aware of the proceedings, the accused failed to put in appearance, the trial Court passed an order dated 27.4.2016 and directed that they be summoned through warrant of arrest. The said order dated 27.4.2016 has been challenged by the respective accused persons by way of misc. petitions Nos.2169/2016, 2174/2016, 2175/2016, 2176/2016, 2177/2016, 2178/2016, 2179/2016, 2180/2016, 2181/2016, 2182/2016, 2183/2016, 2184/2016, 2185/2016, 2186/2016, 2187/2016. The complainants have thereafter moved another set of misc. petitions Nos.3403/2016, 3404/2016, 3405/2016, 3406/2016, 3407/2016, 3408/2016, 3409/2016, 3410/2016, 3411/2016, 3412/2016, 3413/2016, 3414/2016, 3415/2016, 3416/2016 and 3425/2016 praying for clarification in the order dated 15.12.2015 passed by this Court in the earlier round of litigation.;