W H§$H COL§RT 05F CEHATI‘gSGI-‘aRH. BRASPUR; M mimmag Miss; Paaiiim Na.4:r% a? 2am? PET%T!ONER/: (Ccmpiainam) Ma Kami Cca! Camers Private Limited Company — B§shiampun Sarguga, Through — Major Generai — Retirted RC. Puri, 8/0 Shri GD Puri, aged about 6? years, Managing Director, MA. Karm Coal Carriers Pv‘i.>!_td. Versus Coi. Reid. as. Sachar, Sig La‘ée Sardar Dula Singh Sachar, R/o 47 Phase 3-8- RESPONDENTE: (Accwed) . 1, Sas Nagar (Mohali) 160059, District Ropar (Punjab) {Petiiion underWSeciion 482 ei'the Code 0f Criminal Procedure, 1973} _ ant Jayaswai, Seniar Advocate wiih Mr Ajay Mishra, Advocagewfor’iri ‘ ‘x Mr. Arvind Singh, counsel for ihe respondent. Singie‘Bench: iion’bie Mr. 12?. Sharma, J oaAL ORDER (23—1 -2009) 1, This petiiion is directed against the order dated 24-8—2006 passed by the Additionai Chief Judiciai Magistrate, Surajpur, in Criminai Case No.445/2004, whereby iearned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate has dismissed the case registered againet the respondent for offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negetiable Instruments Act, 1881. _ i have heard learned counsel for the parties. Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behair’ of the petitioner submits that only on one occasion the Court beiow has dismissed the compiaint that too at the stage of defence, but subsequently on the same day the Court below has proceeded after recording the presence of the petitioner and aiso the respondent and the case is stiii pending before the Court below in which the respondent has filed his objection reiating to maintainabiiity. ' . On the other hand, learnedcounsel for the respondent submits that after passing of the order of dismissal of the complaint in terms of Section 256 “R