:'-?./ ^il^^'^^' !:i°'~''-?S;;^a8S' VERSUS 1. 2. Ravi Mitfal son of N.D. Gupta, aged aboutSO years, residentofLIG-1, 3038, Mittal Tent, House Board Audhogik Nagar, Bhiiai, P.S. Jam.ul, TahsU aad DistrictDurg(C.G."j. Somaii Mukherji soa. of late S.N. Mukherji, a$ed about 43 years, fhrough <t)urga Auto Deal, Power House, Bhilai, • P.S. Chtiawm, Tah. And District Dur? .(c.g.). State of Cbliattisgarh. PETITION UKDER SECTIO]1^482^0F_CRIMIK[AL PROCEDURB CODB. (SB :Hon'ble Mr. T.P.Sharma, J.) Present : Shri T.K. Tiwari, Advocate for the applicant. Ms. Sangeeta Mishra, P.L. for the State/non-applicant No. 2. None for the non-applicant No. 1. ORAI-- ORDER (Passed on 19/2/2009) 1. This petition is directed against the order dated 24/ 4/ 2006 passed by fhe II*11 Additional Sessions Judge, Durg m. criminal Revision No. 77/06 aairming fhe order dated 25/2/2006 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Durg ia cruninal case No. 77/05 pendiag between applicaat aad non-applicaut No. 1 relatuig to fhe oSence puuishable uader Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, o. Order is challenged on fhe ground fhat Court below wittiout application of inind has passed tbp order ia inechanical way aad thereby coinmitted gross illegaiity. -,. Shri T.K. Tiwari, Advocate for fae appUcaat and Ms. Saageefa Mishra, P.L. forfhe State/non-applicaat No. 2 are heard. 'h '/ ^^s1''."' ^ 4. Order impugned and order of Judicial Magistrate First Class dated \ Kl'21'2006 pemsed. 5. Leamed coiuisel for ttie appUcant subniits that on. 25/2/2006 present applicaiit was faciag trial offhe offen.ee punishable under Section 138 ofthe Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 was unable to appear before fhe trial Court because his wife was .sufferiag froni inajor gyanic <ir probleiu, She was referred to Nagpur for treatment and accused/applicaiit accoinpanied her, AppUcation luentioning these facts have been ffled by fhe applicaut/accused before flie trial Court for seeking exeinption froin personal attendaace but same has been dismissed by fhe tnal Court mechanically wifhout application of miad aad issued warraat ofarrest against the appUcaat/accused. 6. Leamed counsel for the appUcaat also subinits fhat trial Court was under obligation to pass the order after appKcation of aaiad nientioning fhe grouad raised by fhe applicant iu his application but tnal Court has not passed fhe order after application ofniiad. 7. AppUcant has filed the copy of the appUcation fUed before the Court below, Application reveal that wife of fhe appUcant is suffering froin uiajor gyanic problein. She was referred to Nagpui- for treatnient aad accused/applicaat accoiapanied her. 8, Applicant has not filed aiiy docuiaent of treatment or reference eveii applicant has not stated flie date when his wife was referred to Nagpur and by whoui i.e. name of doiitor, when he went Nagpur and expected date of his i^turu. "~ 9. Copy of the order of trial Court reveals that applicaut was not coiaplying the direction for fui-nistung the baU bond. On 25/2/2006 he was not present. Applicaiit has filed the present petition for ^"'.•:~: ':?"l^s>> :^ - -. ,<^ A.'.'.^'i.'y- J quashment of the order of the Courts below on the basis that Court \. below bas passed the orderwithout appUcation ofinind ia. aiechauical way. Copy of tbe application for quasbiuent ffled on behalf of fhe applicant shows that applicaat has filed fhe appUcation for his exemptiou ia a mechauical way witliout mentiortmg the material facts filing the copy of fhe treatnient to show his bona&de. This is a petition ,t- for invoking extraordiaaiy izttierent jurisdiction. Applica&t is required to show that no aay altemate reiuedv is avaflable to Tiim aad his bonafide attempts but iu fhis case aupUcaat has not Eled aav application for his exeiaption on fhe bonofide grouad. Applicaat is haviag remedy offiling suitable application for graat ofbail before fhe Court below but iu stead of approaching the Court he has filed fhe revision aad present petition and fhercby he has succeeded fhe delay for niore fhan 2 years aad not filed aay ground for iavoking extraorduiar^' inherent jurisdiction or a sym.pathy. Consequenfly, the petition is liable to be dismissed aad it is hereby dismissed. Sd/- T.P. Sharma Judge