IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.M.M.O No. 69 of 2009 Date of decision: 1.7.2009 M/s Saboo Cylinders Private Limited ..Petitioner Versus M/s Jagat Industries Nangal Jarialan ..Respondent Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner : Mr. N.K. Thakur, Advocate. For respondent : Surjit Singh, Judge (Oral) Heard and gone through the record. 2. A complaint, under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, has been filed against the petitioner, by respondent- Company. After recording preliminary evidence, trial Magistrate ordered issuance of process, under Section 204 Cr. P.C, against the petitioner, through its Managing Director. On the date fixed for the appearance of the petitioner through its Managing Director, a counsel appeared for the petitioner and made an offer to pay money equivalent to the cheque, in question. Learned Judicial Magistrate ordered issuance of non-bailable warrant against the petitioner, because the Managing Director of the petitioner-Company failed to appear in person. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the facts and the circumstances of the case, particularly keeping in view the offer Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? …2… for payment of money equivalent to the amount of cheque, in question, learned trial Court ought not to have issued non-bailable warrant of arrest. 4. I have perused the record. It finds mention in the order of the learned Magistrate that money equivalent to the cheque, in question, was offered on behalf of the accused. It appears that because the petitioner-company was prepared to pay the amount of cheque to the respondent-company, its (petitioner’s) Managing Director thought that the matter would come to an end on payment of money and for that reason he did not appear. In such a situation, learned Magistrate ought not to have ordered issuance of warrant of arrest and instead should have directed the counsel for the petitioner to produce the Managing Director on the next date, in case it was felt that offer was not genuine or the complainant may not be accepting the money. 5. As a result of above discussion, petition is allowed and impugned order dated 6.6.2009, is set aside and warrant of arrest, in case it has already been issued in compliance with the said order, shall be returned unexecuted by the Police Officer, to whom it has been marked. However, petitioner’s Managing Director is directed to appear before the learned Judicial Magistrate, in person, on 10.7.2009, the next date of hearing, fixed in the aforesaid complaint case. In case he does not appear on that date, learned Judicial Magistrate shall be justified in issuing coercive process. Cr. M.P No.378 of 2009 Infructuous. Dasti copy. July 1, 2009 (ss) (Surjit Singh), J