IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl.Misc.No.M-22580 of 2011 DATE OF DECISION: September 28, 2011 Narender Kumar Jain …..Petitioner versus Vinod Kumar .....Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA Present: Mr.Rajesh Arora, Advocate for the petitioner None for the respondent .. RAJAN GUPTA, J.: (Oral) This is a petition under section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of order dated 9.7.2011 (Annexure P-5) passed by the court of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Gurgaon whereby application of the petitioner seeking exemption from personal appearance was dismissed and he was directed to be summoned through non-bailable warrants. Notice was also issued to the surety and the person who identified him. Learned counsel for the petitioner during the course of arguments has confined his prayer to exemption from personal appearance before the trial court during the pendency of trial. He submits that case pertains to proceedings under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and thus, personal appearance of the petitioner before the court below is not necessary on each and every date of hearing. Crl.Misc.No.M-22580 of 2011 - 2 - I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner. The dispute pertains to a cheque issued by the petitioner which was returned due to insufficient funds in his account. The complainant thus instituted complaint wherein petitioner was summoned to face trial for commission of offence under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. During the course of trial, the petitioner moved an application before the court below seeking exemption from personal appearance on the ground that he was not well. He failed to furnish any medical certificate in support of his plea. The said application was dismissed by the court below as it came to the conclusion that there was no plausible explanation for his absence. In view of law laid down in TGN Kumar vs. State of Kerala and others, (2011) 2 Supreme Court Cases 772, this court would normally refrain from passing order exempting personal appearance of accused before the trial court in its inherent jurisdiction. Under the circumstances, challenge to said order in inherent jurisdiction of this court is misconceived. The petitioner shall, however, be at liberty to move appropriate application in accordance with law. Dismissed. September 28, 2011 ( RAJAN GUPTA ) pc JUDGE 2