30 oh 09.02.2011 Present: Mr. Jagiit Singh, Adv. for ttre Petitioner. None for the Respondent. Crl. M.A. No. 157O/2O11 (exemption) Allowed, subject to all just exceptions. Application stands disposed of. By way of present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., petitioner seeks quashing of order dated l"t November, 2OLO, whereby Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi has dismissed the application of petitioner for cancellation of non-bailable warrants issued against him. Respondent has filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 against the petitioner, which is pending before the Metropolitan Magistrate. Petitioner had been participating in the proceedings and appearing before the Trial Court. On sth M.y, 2OlO he appeared in court along with his counsel. It appears that some compromise proposal was placed on record on that day and the case was adjourned to 16th October, 2OLO for cross-exam ination of complainant's witness Gurpreet Singh. On 16ft October, 2OLO since no one appeared for ttre petitioner, non- 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 L bailable warrants were ordered to be issued against him, returnable for l"t November, 2OIO. As per learned counsel for the petitioner, neither the petitioner nor his counsel could appea-r in the court on 16tt' October, 2OLO since the matter had been transferred from Patiala House Courts to Saket Courts on account of administrative grounds. Counsel for the petitioner made efforts to trace out the court to which case had been assigned and came to know that matter was listed on l"t November, 2OLO. On l"t November, 2010, petitioner was unwell and could not appea.r in the court when the matter was called out. His counsel had appeared in the court at 1:00 PM and moved an application seeking exemption from personal appea.rance on medical ground. Medical certificate was annexed with ttre application. However, Trial Court has dismissed his application. Keeping in mind the fact that on 5th M.y, 2OIO, petitioner did appear before the Trial Court when the case was adjourned to 16th October, 2OlO. In the meanwhile, case had been transferred from the Patiala House Courts to Saket Courts. In view of this, there was every possibility of petitioner's counsel missing track of the court, resulting in non appea-rance of the petitioner and his counsel on 16th October, 2OIO. On the next date of hearing, i.e., l"t November, 2010 3 petitioner's counsel did appear in the court, ttrough late. In this scenario, Trial Court ought to have taken a pragmatic approach and recalled the non-bailable warrants issued against the petitioner. Accordingly, impugned order issuing non-bailable warrants against the petitioner is set aside. Petitioner shall appea.r before the Trial Court on the next date of hearing. Petition is disposed of in the above terms. Dasti. Crl. M.A. No. 1569/2011 (stayl Disposed of as infructuous. I,\t\ 0 NT A.K. PATHAK, J. FTBRUARY 09, ?OLL rb