IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Misc. Application No. 45 of 2009 Shri Pramod Jain. …..…Applicant. Versus State of Uttarakhand and another. …….Respondents. with Criminal Misc. Application No. 787 of 2008 Shri Pramod Jain. …..…Applicant. Versus State of Uttarakhand and another. …….Respondents. with Criminal Misc. Application No. 24 of 2009 Shri Pramod Jain. …..…Applicant. Versus State of Uttarakhand and another. …….Respondents. with Criminal Misc. Application No. 44 of 2009 Shri Pramod Jain. …..…Applicant. Versus State of Uttarakhand and another. …….Respondents. 2 with Criminal Misc. Application No. 46 of 2009 Shri Pramod Jain. …..…Applicant. Versus State of Uttarakhand and another. …….Respondents. with Criminal Misc. Application No. 96 of 2009 Shri Pramod Jain. …..…Applicant. Versus State of Uttarakhand and another. …….Respondents. with Criminal Misc. Application No. 97 of 2009 Shri Pramod Jain. …..…Applicant. Versus State of Uttarakhand and another. …….Respondents. with Criminal Misc. Application No. 99 of 2009 Shri Pramod Jain. …..…Applicant. Versus State of Uttarakhand and another. …….Respondents. 3 with Criminal Misc. Application No. 102 of 2009 Shri Pramod Jain. …..…Applicant. Versus State of Uttarakhand and another. …….Respondents. Hon’ble Alok Singh, J. Mr. Praveen Kapoor and Mr. Z.U. Siddiqui, learned counsels for the applicant. Mr. Nandan Arya, learned AGA for the State of Uttarakhand / respondent no. 1. Mr. V.K. Kohli, Sr. Advocate assisted by Mr. I.P. Kohli, learned counsel for the respondent no. 2. Heard learned counsels for the parties. Since controversy involved and contesting parties in all these petitions are same, consequently, all the petitions are being heard and decided together by this common order with the consent of the counsels appearing before me. Mr. Praveen Kapoor, learned counsel for the applicant argued that present petitioner / applicant was not impleaded as one of the opposite party / accused in the complaint filed for offence under section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act. He further argued that merely because M/s Shiva Paper Mills Limited, a company, was impleaded as one of the opposite party through its Managing Director Sri Pramod Jain does not 4 give power to the Magistrate to summon Sri Pramod Jain in his personal capacity. Mr. V.K. Kohli, Sr. Advocate assisted by Mr. I.P. Kohli, learned counsel for the respondent no. 2 stated that five other cases under section 482 of Code of Criminal of Procedure were filed before this court, between the same parties raising same question of law, were dismissed by this court vide order dated 23.06.2009. Mr. V.K. Kohli, Sr. Advocate placed photo copy of order dated 23.06.2009 passed by this court in Criminal Misc. Application Nos. 100, 101, 103, 104 and 105 of 2009 which is taken on record. Despite my asking as to whether judgment passed by the Coordinate Bench of this court dated 23.06.2009 was challenged before the Hon’ble Apex Court or not, both the counsels could not state with certainty. Judicial discipline requires that I need not take contrary view to the view taken by the Coordinate Bench in the identical matter between the parties. In view of the above, I am not inclined to take into consideration the argument advanced by Mr. Praveen Kapoor. In view of the above, present petitions are dismissed in the light of order dated 23.06.2009 passed in connected and identical matter between the same parties in Criminal Misc. Application Nos. 100, 101, 103, 104 and 105 of 2009. All the pending applications stand disposed of. (Alok Singh, J.) 14.12.2009 SKS