1 S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 2197/2009 Rakesh Bhatia vs. Sudhir Kumar Methi Date: 29.01.2010 HON'BLE MR. MAHESH BHAGWATI, J. Mr. Nawal Singh Sikarwar, for the petitioner. Mr. Ritesh Jain, for the respondent. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and carefully perused the impugned order dated 1st September, 2009, it is noticed that one complaint under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act came to be filed in the court, wherein the court took cognizance of the offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act on 19.02.2008 and proceeded against the accused petitioner. The statements of the complainant was recorded on 06.01.2009 and the accused was granted four opportunities to cross-examine the witnesses but he did not avail the said opportunities. Thereafter, the accused petitioner remained absent and appeared in the court on 25.08.2009. He filed an application under Section 203 of Cr.P.C. praying to dismiss the complaint. He also prayed for an opportunity to be given to further cross 2 examine the complainant. Learned trial court having considered all the aspects dismissed the application filed under Section 203 of Cr.P.C. and declined to grant any other opportunity to further cross examine the complainant. 2. I am afraid, when the accused had appeared in the court pursuant to the process issued under Section 204 of Cr.P.C., whether could he file any application under Section 203 of Cr.P.C. to dismiss the complaint. To my firm view, after putting appearance by the accused in the court pursuant to the process issued under Section 204 of Cr.P.C., the provisions of Section 203 for dismissing the complaint are not attracted. The complaint under Section 203 of Cr.P.C. is dismissed prior to the issuance of process under Section 204 of Cr.P.C. only when the statements of the complainant as also the witnesses examined under Section 200 and 202 of Cr.P.C. do not disclose any offence. In the case on hand, the accused petitioner was granted ample opportunities to cross-examine the complainant, but he did not avail the same. The learned court below rightly dismissed 3 the prayer of the petitioner. The impugned order is just and proper and suffers from no infirmity or illegality. I do not find any force in the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and thus, the criminal misc. petition being devoid of any substance deserves to be dismissed at the threshold. 3. In view of above, the criminal misc. petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. stands dismissed at the threshold. (MAHESH BHAGWATI),J. Mak/- 74