1 This application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [for short, 'the Code'] is filed by the applicant (original complainant) with a prayer to quash the order dated 20th April 012 passed by the learned 3rd Additinoal Senior Civil Judge and Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bharuch, below Exh.94 in Criminal Case No.13108 of 2005.
2 By application Exh.97, the complainant raised an objection that, as per Section 143 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the trial under Section 138 of the said Act shall be commenced as per 'summary trial' under the provisions of Sections 262 and 265 of the Code.
3 As against that, on behalf of the accused, it is submitted that the trial has been proceeded as per regular summons trial from the beginning and, at the relevant point of time, the complainant had not raised any objection and even plea has also been recorded on 26.4.2006 and, after period of six years, the above application was moved on 11.4.2012.
4 Considering the above, the trial court rejected the said application of the complainant on the ground of delay. The trial court has, in paragraphs 4 and 5, observed as under:
"4. Complainant moved this application at the stage of argument if he wants to take objection he should move the application at the stage of recording the plea but he did not do this. It apparently seems to me that the complainant moved this application with deliberate intention to avoid the proceedings/trial and final adjudication of this Court because plea has been recorded on 26th April 2006 and after that evidence of the complainant has been recorded on 23/6/2006 and this application moved on 11.4.2012. After recording plea complainant did not move such application and, at this later stage, if the application is allowed the object of justice will be frustrated and accused has to face the whole trial at initial stage which will cause gross hardship, harassment and injustice to the accused and again he has to go through from the same proceeding without any reason.
(5). If the plea has been recorded in summary form as per Chapter 22 of Cr.P.C. then it is necessary that the whole case proceeded before same magistrate but in the present case, the plea has been recorded in summons trial form. So, the provisions of Section 326, sub-clause 2 and Section 461 of Cr. P.C. is not applicable to this case."
5 Having heard the learned counsel for the applicant and on perusal of the record, in my view, the impugned order passed by the trial court cannot be said to be in any manner illegal, nor the learned trial judge has acted in exercise of his jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity. The decision of the Apex Court, 2011 (9) SCC 638, relied upon by the learned counsel for the applicant is not applicable to the facts of the present case. No case is made out to entertain the present application . Hence, this application is rejected summarily.
(ANANT S. DAVE, J.) (swamy) Top