v Appljcant Re-spondt.Ht MI@W,CQURT,€V_CHHATT1S^AMH AT,BIL45^^^^ Cr.m.P.No.278 of Svatantra Kumar @ ©uddu. S/o of ftamashray Singh, aaed about 43 years, R/o 46, Jakir Husain VVardaal4 A, Ar^bikapur, District-Sarguja (C<6.) Versus AshoR Kymar1, S/o Late Shri Laxman Prasad Kedia, Proprietor ^opai Minieral, R/o Persdra Road, DIstrict-Biiaspur (C.S) (Petjtion under Sectbn 482 of the CrP.C.) (SB; Hon'ble M.r. T.P. Shormo., J..) Present ^ Mr. Prateek $harmn, counsel for the appjjcant. Mr.Ashok Soni, counsei for the respondent, OR.4L (Passsd ©n10th Ssptsmber, 2009) 1. The appiicant has fited this petjtjon agajnst.the order dated 28.4.2006 passed by the Jydicia! Magistrate pi?'kst CJass, Pendra ftoad, jn CrJmlnaJ Case No,765/2004 whereby learne-d Judjcial Magl<trate First Class has expfained the partscuiars of the. offence punishabte ynder Se.ction 138 of the NeaotJable Instruments .Act, 1881 (in short ithe. ,Act,l881') against the appiicant. 2, The order Is chaiienge-d on the ground thot without there bemg ony prjma focle moterjai/the trla! Court has exptained the. parti.eulars of the offence and thereby committed jdegaJlty and continuance of crimina! proce-edjng on the basis of •the aforesald order would amount to abus'e of nrocess of ¥neCourt. 3, I haye heard ie^ir-ne-d counse! for the parties and. perused the order jmpugned. $ B/- —2.— 4. Learned counsel for the appHcont submits that cheque has not, been issued by the appllcant. Cheque has bee.n Issued by some other person, He ho.s fHed an appiication for discha^. of his tiabitlt^/ in -rtie year 2006, but the same'has been dismissed, After Japse of 2 yaars, the present respondent has fited on appfication for. impteadjng another person as an accu^ed under Sectlon 319 of the Code of Crlmina! Procedure, 1973 Qnd sa^e has been altewed. Leamed c-ounsel further submit^ that trial is pending since last 3 years •against the appHcant and eyen if tfie entire ca^e Is admltted as it is, even then conviction would not be po^slble against the applicant. S< On the other hand/iearned counseJ for the respondent ^ybrpJts that the appjlcant has not choJienged the order dated 28,4,2006 before the reyisional Court, Previousiy he has choJJengad the order after bpse of 3 years< Learned counse! further submits that the appljccnt is a person who has issued Itie c-heque to the respondent, may be connivance with the other accused which he has tmpJe.ade.d as accused. 6. Admittedly, the applicant has not avas!ed remedy of revision and after Japse of two years, the appiica»lthas filed this petition. The respondent has made speclfic aSJegatlon against the present appilcant who has i<!sued the cheque. At this stage It cannot be decided that who has js^ued the cheque'and wht-ther he is iiabte for discharge of liabHlty or not. I do not find any scope for interference,. 7.. Consequentiy^ the petition bein-g dhvoid of merit Is liabfe to be dismi^sed and it Is hereby dismissed... Sd/- T.P. Sharma Judge 1