After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner and perusing the paper book, I do not find that any case for interference can be made out. From a perusal of the impugned order, it is evident that the complaints were filed by the respondent-plaintiff in the year 2007. The case of the petitioner is that she came to know about those complaints filed under Section 138 of the Act in the year 2009. At that stage, the son of the petitioner filed a petition in this court challenging the order passed by the court concerned declaring him a proclaimed offender on account of his non-appearance in the complaints. This court had set aside that order and directed the petitioner therein to appear before the court where the criminal complaints were pending. Meaning thereby that the petitioner had knowledge about the pendency of the complaints filed against her son in the year 2009. It is further evident from the order impugned that earlier evidence of the petitioner was closed by order of the court, as she failed to lead any evidence. The order was impugned before this court. While setting aside the order, this court had granted one opportunity to the petitioner to conclude her evidence. Despite availing four opportunities, the evidence was not concluded. It has further been noticed that despite setting aside the order declaring the son of the petitioner a proclaimed offender and granting him liberty to appear before the court in the complaints under Section 138 of the Act and furnish his bail bonds, he never appeared.
