2022 (2) TMI 1115

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....unsel for the petitioner submits that the present case arises out of complaints filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 on behalf of the petitioner. It is submitted that respondent No. 2 had issued 11 cheques totaling to Rs. 32,00,000/-, which on presentation got dishonored. She further submits that the present matter relates to the year 2016 and the trial has not proceeded as respondent No. 2 for one reason or the other has deliberately delayed the trial. She submits that on the pretext of settling the matter, respondent No. 2 has continuously remained absent from the Trial Court and resultantly proceedings under Section 82 Cr.P.C. were initiated against him and he was declared an 'absconder' on 06.10.2018. It is su....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ement on account of financial constraints. He further submits that after passing of the impugned order dated 12.04.2021, whereby the order dated 06.10.2018 declaring respondent No. 2 as an 'absconder' was stayed, respondent No. 2 has appeared before the Trial Court. He, on instructions, submits that respondent No. 2 undertakes to appear before the Trial Court as and when the matter is fixed. He also submits that in this regard, respondent No. 2 shall also file a written undertaking in the form of an affidavit before the Trial Court within a period of two weeks from today. 4. I have heard learned counsels for the parties and have also gone through the case records. 5. As noted hereinabove, the present case emanates from complaints filed un....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....No. 2 seeking anticipatory bail, which was also dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 08.02.2021. Respondent No. filed an application under Section 70(2) Cr.P.C. before the Trial Court seeking setting aside/stay of the order dated 06.10.2018, which also came to be dismissed on 10.02.2021. Respondent No. 2 again approached this Court by way of CRL M.C. Nos. 459/2021 & 517-526/2021, which again came to be dismissed vide order dated 22.03.2021 and the orders dated 06.10.2018 and 10.02.2021 declaring respondent No. 2 as an 'absconder' were upheld. 6. A perusal of the impugned order dated 12.04.2021 would show that the Trial Court, while granting stay on the order dated 06.10.2018 erroneously relied upon Office Order No. 256/RG/DHC/2021 dated....