Allowed

M/s. Decan Chromates Limtied, v. P.Sridhar

Telangana HC3 Dec 2011CRLP/4845/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In CRL.P. No. 4845 of 2009, this Court held that a Magistrate cannot exercise advisory jurisdiction to direct a complainant to file a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act when at least two offences under Sections 406, 420, and 506 IPC are disclosed. The Court set aside the impugned order, holding that the complainant must be free to pursue his chosen remedy.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order of the learned Magistrate directing return of the complaint was set aside, and the matter remanded for fresh disposal under the law without exercising advisory jurisdiction.

M/s. Decan Chromates Limtied, Vs P.Sridhar — Cheque Dishonour | Telangana HC (2011)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.RAVI SHANKAR

¶2

CRL.P.No.4845 OF 2009

¶3

ORDER:-

¶4

The petitioner herein, which is a limited Company, filed a private complaint before the Court of XIV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad alleging offences punishable under Sections 406, 420 and 506 read with 34 I.P.C. against the two accused i.e., A-1 and A-2 arrayed therein.

¶5

2. The version of the complainant is that A-1 and A-2 purchased some chemicals from it and later on, fell due a sum of Rs.9,02,223/- and in part discharge of the same, they issued certain cheques, which were ultimately dishonoured. The allegation made in the complaint is that right from the beginning, both A-1 and A-2 had an intention to cheat the complainant and on this premise, it laid private complaint.

¶6

3. The learned Magistrate considered the complaint and on 02.05.2009, passed the following order:

¶7

“Perused the contents of complaint. It shows that there are no allegations in the complaint that accused had dishonest intention not to pay even at the time of issuance of the cheques and resulted in causing damage to his body, mind and reputation to attract offences under Sections 406, 420 and 506 I.P.C. Hence, complainant is directed to take action under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. Accordingly, complaint is returned.”

¶8

The present petition is filed to quash the above order directing return of complaint.

¶9

4. Heard Sri V.L.V.Kesava Rao, learned Counsel for

¶10

petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor. Learned Counsel for respondent No.2 is absent and as the matter is of the year 2009, it is being disposed of.

¶11

5. The learned Counsel for the petitioner/complainant says that despite the allegations made in the complaint, which show the offences alleged in it, the learned Magistrate returned the complaint by passing the above order directing the complainant to file complaint for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and this order is illegal.

¶12

6. A perusal of the order passed by the learned Magistrate, which has been extracted above, would show that he in fact exercised what is called an advisory jurisdiction, which he is not supposed to do.

¶13

7. It is settled now that even after enactment of Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, there is no bar for an aggrieved person to prosecute the drawer for an offence of cheating. It may be noted that if the Magistrate finds that the complaint filed by the petitioner does not disclose any offence or any ground to proceed against the accused, it was always open for him to dismiss it in exercise of his power under Section 203 Cr.P.C. It was also open for him to refer the matter to police under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. or even proceed under Section 202 Cr.P.C. if that was warranted. He should have adopted one of the above courses, but in the present case, he passed the above order advising the complainant to prosecute the accused for the offences mentioned by him.

¶14

8. It may be noted that it is always the privilege of

¶15

the complainant to pursue whatever remedy he is advised to pursue. In the above circumstances, I am of the opinion that the impugned order of the learned Magistrate cannot be allowed to stand and it is accordingly, set aside. The complainant shall now present the complaint before the learned Magistrate and the learned Magistrate shall dispose of the same in accordance with law without exercising any advisory jurisdiction.

¶16

8. Thus, the Criminal Petition is, accordingly, allowed.

¶17

_____________________ N.RAVI SHANKAR, J 03^rd December, 2011. AMD THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.RAVI SHANKAR

¶18

CRL.P.No.4845 OF 2009

¶19

Date:03.12.2011

¶20

AMD

M/s. Decan Chromates Limtied, v. P.Sridhar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s. Decan Chromates Limtied, v. P.Sridhar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kanchan Chandrakanth Shirola, Vs The State of A.P.

Devishetti Ramesh Vs The State of A.P.

Y.V. Appa Rao, Vs State, rep. by Inspector of Police

M/s Shree Deepa Durgs , Pharmaceuticals(P) Ltd., Vs State of A.P.

Nandamuri Ram Prasad, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Smt. Suhasini, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh