a S-zo * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL.M.C. 2359/2oto SHEFALI KOUL ..... Petitioner Through Mr. Vivek Singh, Advocate versus STATE & ORS ..... Respondents Through Mr. Arvind Kr. Gupta, APP for the State. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA ORDER 26.07.20LO crl. M.A. No. 12696/2010 (Exemption) Allowed, subject to all just exceptions. Crl. M.C. No.2359/2010 '1,. The petitioner herein has filed a complaint under Section r.38 of Negotiable Instrument Act and two other criminal complaints against her brothers. 2. On the basis of one complaint, FIR No. 108/2009 under Sections 354/509/323/34IPC was registered at P.5. Amar Colony on 2O.\2.2OO9 against her brothers. ln this FlR, charge-sheet was filed on 29.04.2009. 3. After summoning order was passed on 06.08.2009, one of che accused Madhav Bhan appeared before the trial court and was admitted to bail. The other accused Arun Bhan, was not served and was summoned to appear on '14.t2.2009. On the said date again fresh summons were directed to be issued for 24.04.2010. The =: % Digitally Signed By:AMULYA Certify that the digital file and physical file have been compared and the digital data is as per the physical file and no page is missing. Signature Not Verified >/ { f learned Metropolitan Magistrate was on leave on 24.04.2010, and accordingly, the case has been adjourned to 07.09.2010. Service reports are not available and have not been filed with the present petition. 2. I do not see any reason to entertain this petition as the proceedings before the trial court have just begun and steps for 'appearance of Arun Bhan have been taken. Learned trial court can be approached for appropriate orders/directions. The facts stated above do not at this stage justify exercise of discretionary supervisory power. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner has received threats and in this connection, he has referred to the letter dated 29.04.2009. 4. The respondent police will examine the allegations made and, if found to be correct, will ensure that the petitioner is not harmed, lt is also open to the petitioner to approach the learned trial court. This court has not e;rpressed any opinion whether any threat was orrvas not given to the petitioner. The petition is accordingly disposed of. .4- lt I t''l' \- SANJIV KHANNA, J. JULY 26,zOLOlrs/VKR ,