The Court dismissed a Criminal Petition under Section 482 CrPC seeking quashing of proceedings in a cheque dishonour case. Relying on A.C. Narayanan, it held a Section 200 inquiry is complete via affidavit.
Criminal Petition No.9072 of 2014 and pending miscellaneous petitions dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.PRAVEEN KUMAR
CRIMINAL PETITION No.9072 of 2014
ORDER:
This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioner/accused under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking quashing of all further proceedings in C.C.No.506 of 2003 on the file of the II Additional Munsif Magistrate, Ongole.
A private complaint came to be filed against the petitioner/ accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
The learned counsel for the petitioner mainly submits that the trial Court erred in taking cognizance of the case without recording the sworn statement of the complainant.
The material on record would disclose that the trial Court took cognizance of the matter basing on the affidavit filed by the complainant.
The issue as to whether the trial Court erred in taking cognizance of the case without recording the sworn statement of the complainant is no more res integra in view of the judgment of the Apex Court in A.C.Narayanan Vs. State of Maharashtra and another[1] wherein it was held as under:
22) From a conjoint reading of Sections 138, 142 and 145 of the N.I. Act as well as Section 200 of the Code, it is clear that it is open to the Magistrate to issue process on the basis of the contents of the complaint, documents in support thereof and the affidavit submitted by the complainant in support of the complaint. Once the complainant files an affidavit in support of the complaint before issuance of the process under Section 200 of the Code, it is thereafter open to the Magistrate, if he thinks fit, to call upon the complainant to remain present and to examine him as to the facts contained in the affidavit
submitted by the complainant in support of his complaint. However, it is a matter of discretion and the Magistrate is not bound to call upon the complainant to remain present before the Court and to examine him upon oath for taking decision whether or not to issue process on the complaint under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. For the purpose of issuing process under Section 200 of the Code, it is open to the Magistrate to rely upon the verification in the form of affidavit filed by the complainant in support of the complaint under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. It is only if and where the Magistrate, after considering the complaint under Section 138 of the N.I. Act, documents produced in support thereof and the verification in the form of affidavit of the complainant, is of the view that examination of the complainant or his witness(s) is required, the Magistrate may call upon the complainant to remain present before the Court and examine the complainant and/or his witness upon oath for taking a decision whether or not to issue process on the complaint under Section 138 of the N.I. Act.
In view of the judgment referred to above, this Court is of the view that there are no merits in the petition and the same is liable to be dismissed.
Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed.
As a sequel thereto, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this Criminal Petition, shall stand dismissed.
_________________________ JUSTICE C. PRAVEEN KUMAR 25.08.2014 gkv
Crlp_9072_2014 AC Narayanan case 22 para
[1] 2014 (1) ALD 653
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the Magistrate erred in taking cognizance of the complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act without recording the sworn statement of the complainant.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
A.C.Narayanan Vs. State of Maharashtra and anotherApplied¶8
A.C.Narayanan Vs. State of Maharashtra and another [1] 2014 (1) ALD 653
4 provisions across 3 enactments
Petitioner/Accused
Complainant
C. Praveen Kumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
