JUDGMENT 1. - Instant petition U/s. 482, Cr.PC., has bee filed by accused against order dated 25.05.07 in Cr. Case-6/2007, whereby his application for summoning alleged document A4/16 from court of Chief Judl. Magistrate, Sikar, has been rejected by trial Magistrate (ACJM Sikar). 2. Criminal complaint was filed by respondent alleging inter-alia for commission of offence punishable under Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 ("the Act") on account of two cheques to the tune of total Rs. 1.50 lacs being dishonoured. After summons were issued to the petitioner, the trial commenced and statement of complainant was closed on 23.07.05 and the matter was fixed for recording of defence evidence on 20.08.05 and thereafter statements of defence witnesses could not be recorded for one reason or the other till 17.01.07. Recording of statement of accused Nemichand (Dw.1) started on 17.01.07 and completed on 03.08.07. Statement of Shankerlal (Dw.2) was recorded on 08.08.07 and matter was kept for recording of statements of defence witnesses if any further. 3. Initially applications were filed by petitioner for transfer of criminal case from one court to another, at least for more than thrice-reference whereof has been made by Sessions Judge, Sikar in his last order dated 04.07.07 whereby his application for transfer was dismissed. First transfer application was filed in October, 2005 and matter was transferred from ACJM Sikar to the Court of CJM Sikar for disposal of criminal case, when again petitioner filed application seeking transfer of the case from the Court of CJM Sikar and vide order dated 05.12.06, the case was transferred from CJM to ACJM Sikar with the direction to dispose of the case within three months. 4. Any how, the case could not be disposed to and by that time, petitioner changed four prayers at different points of time making frivolous allegations against lawyers and Presiding Officers of the Court. Since their was time fixed by Court of Sessions while transferring the case to dispose of within three months, but petitioner moved application U/s. 91 Cr.PC. to summon statements of accounts maintained by complainant because he alleged in his reply to the notice that he has paid the amount in question in installments during the period from May to August, 2003. Since his application was rejected by learned trial Magistrate, petitioner approached this Court by filing Cr. Misc. Pet. to summon statements of accounts maintained by complainant because he alleged in his reply to the notice that he has paid the amount in question in installments during the period from May to August, 2003. Since his application was rejected by learned trial Magistrate, petitioner approached this Court by filing Cr. Misc. Pet. No. 656/05 which was disposed of in September, 2006 with the direction to call upon such documents/accounts books before the trial Court. Relevant accounts books were placed by respondent complainant. 5. Since matter was to be disposed of within three months as directed by Court of Sessions while transferring the case, petitioner again filed application for transfer of the case to other court reference whereof has been made even of the alleged document A4/16 for which it has been observed particularly in para 5 of the said order dated 04.07.07 that in fact there was no such document purported as A4/16, which was a notice served by complainant marked as Ex.P.7 and while indexing document Ex.P7, it was marked as A-4-13, A4-14, A4-15, and last page of notice was stapled on a plain sheet but it appears that it was later on detached and while indexing the record, the clerk put a separate page of plain sheet on which the clerk marked as A4/16, where later on an invitation card placed by petitioner on record as Ex.42 alongwith his document was tagged by clerk concerned and petitioner wanted to take benefit of such discrepancy as noticed and referred to by Court of Sessions while dismissing transfer application of petitioner vide detailed order imposing even costs upon him for filing frivolous transfer petitions. 6. However, since there was no such document and petitioner had filed separate applications for summoning documents marked as A4/16, the matter remained pending before trial Magistrate despite being ordered by Court of Session for early disposal of criminal case as is evident from order dated 04.07.07; as such complainant filed application with the request that there is no such document allegedly marked as A4/16 and all such documents-reference whereof has been made, are already on record and application of petitioner for summoning such documents was sought to be rejected. After making note of material on record, and so also order of the Sessions Judge, dated 04.07.07, learned trial Magistrate finally rejected his application for summoning of document-A4/16 and the matter was fixed for recording of defence evidence vide order dated 25.05.07. Hence this petition. 7. Counsel for petitioner has reiterated the arguments as advanced before trial Magistrate and the Sessions Judge, laying such stress to supply him document marked A4/16, being essential for his defence which alone will show that amount has been paid-in the absence of original being made available on record, the trial may not proceed any further. 8. Counsel for complainant while supporting order impugned submits that there has been no such document marked A4/16 and the petitioner for one or the other reasons has deferred the trial to proceed further despite the fact that his four applications earlier filed seeking transfer of the case has been objectively considered and disposed of but he made frivolous effort filing last application which was ultimately dismissed by Court of Sessions 5 vide detailed order even imposing costs upon him and that apart, the Court of Sessions has noticed about document A4/16, of reference has been made by petitioner throughout for summoning in course of trial and proceeding, note, whereof, learned trial Magistrate has also examined material on record and finally observed about the said document (A4/16) in such circumstances, no error has been committed while the trial has been withheld despite order for expeditious disposal of complaint, itself within three months. 9. The record was called for by this Court and with the assistance of Counsel for the parties, this Court has examined the same. It appears that there is no such document (A4/16) and it was a Notice served by 5 complainant and duly placed as Ex.P. 7 which was of the three pages, while indexing it, the clerk marked its pages at A4/13, A4/14, & A4/15 and last page was stapled on a plain sheet and it appears that on the said plain sheet there is signature of complainant but later on it was unstapled and while indexing whereof, A4/16 was marked by the clerk. 10. Any how, the clerk has tagged on plain sheet by stapling invitation card placed on record by the petitioner marked as Ex.42. 10. Any how, the clerk has tagged on plain sheet by stapling invitation card placed on record by the petitioner marked as Ex.42. In fact there is no such document which the petitioner has sought to summon and it appears to be a method adopted for deferring the trial for one or the other reason. 11. Sessions Judge while disposing of third transfer application of 5 petitioner observed and directed the trial Magistrate to dispose of complainant within three months vide order dated 05.12.06. But application filed U/s. 91 Cr.P.C. to summon account-books of complainant was also allowed and made available on record and there was no other plea left which could be raised at a later stage. 12. Be that as it may, the matter could not proceed further which was at the fag end of recording of defence evidence but the petitioner filed application for summoning document (A4/16), while complainant throughout trial and so also before this Court is making request that there is no such document, reference whereof has been made. The learned trial Magistrate 5 after taking note of material on record dismissed aforesaid application and directed to proceed further for recording of defence witness. 13. This Court has gone through the order impugned and does not find any infirmity which may call for interference. 14. Consequently, the misc. petition fails and is hereby dismissed. The o record be sent back forthwith with the direction to the trial Court to expedite the trial in accordance with law.Petition dismissed. *******