Crl.Misc.No.M-32391 of 2008 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl.Misc.No.M-32391of 2008. Decided on: September 01, 2009. M/s.Harishchandra & Co. and others .. Petitioners VERSUS Shri Devvert Singh .. Respondent * * * CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.M.S.BEDI PRESENT Mr.Kuldeep Mansukhani, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr.Devvert Singh, respondent in person. M.M.S. BEDI, J. Petitioners have been summoned in a complaint case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short 'The Act'), filed by complainant-respondent. The complaint (Annexure P2), was admittedly barred by time prescribed under Section 138 of the Act. While summoning the petitioners vide summoning order dated 25.09.2007, the trial Court had allowed an application of the complainant under Section 142-B of the Act, believing the ground that the petitioners-accused had been confined for about 13 days after calling him to settle the account and . . . 1 Crl.Misc.No.M-32391 of 2008 thereafter, the accused refused to make the payment. Complainant rushed from Bombay to Sonepat, and filed the complaint. In Crl.Misc.No.M-34477 of 2008, titled M/s Harishchandra & Co., and others Vs.Sh.Devvert Singh, decided on 01.09.2009, it has been held that an application for condonation of delay filed under Section 142(b) of the Act, cannot be allowed without issuing notice to the accused persons. A Magistrate can deal with the complaint in accordance with procedure contained in Section 200 Cr.P.C., only after condoning the delay by issuing notice to the accused. The subject matter of this revision petition is covered by the decision of aforesaid case. In the present case, the summoning order is set aside as the subject matter is covered by the decision in above said criminal miscellaneous. Disposed of in same terms. The complainant is directed to put in appearance before the trial Court on 23.10.2009, for proceedings in accordance with law. (M.M.S.BEDI) JUDGE September 01, 2009. rka . . . 2