IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc M-15982 of 2010 Date of decision: 3.8.2010 Anand Kishore Pasricha …Petitioner Versus Smt Rajni Bhakhan …Respondent Present: Mr BB Bagga, Advocate for the petitioner. S.S.SARON, J. Heard. This petition under Section 482 CrPC has been filed seeking quashing of the order dated 8.12.2009 (P4) passed by the learned JMIC Jalandhar, whereby the application filed by the petitioner under Section 245 CrPC for discharging him, has been dismissed and also quashing the summoning order dated 18.7.2005 (P6) passed by the learned JMIC Jalandhar. There are two partnership firms namely Competent Engineers and Gian Engineering Works. Both at the relevant time had their registered offices in the same premises at Jalandhar. Anand Kumar Pasricha (petitioner) is partner along with Balraj Bakhan in Gian Engineering Works. Balraj Bakhan is husband of the complainant-respondent – Smt Rajni Bakhan. Ms Madhu Pasricha wife of the petitioner – Anand Kishore Pasricha is a partner in M/s Competent Engineers. In this manner, one family member of each of the parties is a partner in the other firm. Cr Misc M- 16982 of 2010 2 Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the cheque dated 21.5.2005 for an amount of Rs 4,00,000/- which is said to have been dishonoured on account of which the impugned complaint (P1) has been filed by Smt Rajni Bakhan – complainant-respondent, is not maintainable as it is a ‘self’ cheque. Besides, it is submitted that Balraj Bakhan – husband of the complainant-respondent – Smt Rajni Bakhan has appeared as a witness and has stated that the disputed cheque was handed- over by Sh Anand Kishore Pasricha (petitioner) to him (Balraj Bakhan) in the factory premises of M/sCompetent Engineers in April 2005 in the presence of Rakesh Dhir – Arbitrator, who is alive. It is further submitted that Sh Anand Kishore (petitioner) told him (Balraj Bakhan) that since the amount was for ‘kacha’ payment and unaccountable, therefore, the cheque could not be drawn in the name of M/s Competent Engineers. As such he had drawn the cheque favouring ‘self’. It is further stated that the amount is not payable to Rajni Bakhan (complainant-respondent) individually. Therefore, it is submitted that the summoning order dated 18.7.2005 (P6) and the order dated 8.12.2009 (P4) dismissing the application under Section 245 CrPC are liable to be set aside and quashed. After giving my thoughtful consideration to the matter, it may be noticed that the trial in the case has commenced. The witnesses of the complainant have examined themselves and cross-examination has also been conducted. The learned trial Magistrate in his order dated 8.12.2009 (P4) has noticed that the application has been moved when the cross- examination of CW1 was in progress. It is well-known that ordinarily criminal proceedings which are instituted against an accused, must be tried and taken to its logical conclusion and this Court would be reluctant to interfere in the proceedings at an inter-locutary stage. Therefore, once the Cr Misc M- 16982 of 2010 3 trial in the case has commenced, it would be just and expedient that the learned trial Magistrate considers the evidence and disposes of the matter in accordance with law and this Court is normally not to interfere in the jurisdiction of the Magistrate and appreciate the evidence that has been recorded and pass orders on the basis of the part evidence that has been recorded. This indeed is the domain of the trial Magistrate. Learned counsel for the petitioner however, submits that the petitioner is suffering from grave depression and is a patient of hypertension. Besides, being a ‘self’ cheque, the complaint itself would not be maintainable. In my view, this aspect would be gone into by the learned trial Magistrate itself and not in proceedings under Section 482 CrPC. In any case, as regards the grievance of the petitioner being a patient of grave depression and hypertension, the ends of justice would be met if his personal presence on each date of hearing is dispensed with subject to the imposition of certain conditions. Accordingly, finding no merit, this petition is dismissed. However, the personal presence of the petitioner on each date of hearing shall remain dispensed with subject to the condition that he files an undertaking that he would have no objection if the evidence is recorded in his absence, he is represented by a counsel on each date of hearing and he would appear on the date(s) when his presence is required by the learned Magistrate. 3.8.2010 ( S.S.SARON ) ASR Judge