SANDEEP MEHTA,J. - (1.) Heard. None has appeared on behalf of the respondent accused despite service of notice.
(2.) Facts in brief are that the petitioner filed a complaint in the court of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Sujangarh in the year 2011 for the offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act against the respondent Laxman Singh alleging dishonour of a cheque to the tune of Rs. 10,00,000/-. During pendency of the said complaint and when the proceedings had reached to a final stage, the parties arrived at a compromise on 08.07.2014. An application for compromise was filed. The trial court passed an order dated 08.07.2014 on the compromise application directing that the complainant and the accused should deposit 10% of the cheque amount in light of the Supreme Court decision in the case of Damodar S. Prabhu v. Sayed Babulal H., reported in AIR 2010 SC 1907 where-after the compromise would be verified. At that stage, the complainant's Advocate requested the court that the compromise may not be verified and rather, the complainant may be allowed to withdraw the complaint. However, the trial court did not accept the said prayer and directed that the compromise be filed. The trial court listed the matter on 06.12.2014 for recording the statement of the complainant. A perusal of the trial court's proceedings reveals that the trial court itself was not sure as to the stage of the proceedings because in the previous order-sheets, it was recorded that the matter is going on for final arguments whereas, in the order-sheet dated 03.11.2014, it is recorded that the matter was being postponed for evidence of the complainant on 06.12.2014. Thus manifestly, it is not even certain as to at what stage, the proceedings of the complainant were pending when the impugned orders came to be passed.
(3.) Be that as it may. On 06.12.2014, the complainant and his Advocate were not present in the court. The file was taken up in the National Lok Adalat. The court passed an order on that day that the complainant Kishna Ram had filed a compromise dated 08.07.2014 in the court and that he had been directed to deposit 10% of the cheque amount viz. Rs. 1,00,000/-. Since then, he had stopped appearing in the court with an intention of frustrating the said order. The trial court also observed that it had accepted the compromise on 08.07.2014 itself and thus, the same was being verified and the accused was acquitted from the charge under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. The trial court further directed that the complainant had received the entire cheque amount of Rs. 10,00,000/- from the accused and thus, he was under an obligation to deposit 10% of the cheque amount by way of cost in light of the Supreme Court decision in Damodar S. Prabhu's case (supra). The said order and the entire proceedings of the complaint are assailed by the petitioner complainant by way of the instant misc. Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C.;