9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (3) TMI 491 - HC - Indian LawsDishonour of Cheque - essential ingredients of Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act 1881 fulfilled or not - the case is that the petition of complaint has failed to mention the specific role of the petitioner in order to link the petitioner to the offence as alleged in the complaint - HELD THAT - In the present case the Magistrate took evidence on affidavit along with documents under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and considered the case to be suitable for issuing process under Section 202 Cr.P.C. on examination of the documents and the evidence of the complainant on affidavit and being satisfied as to the sufficiency of grounds for proceeding under Section 202 Cr.P.C. Thus the order under revision dated 24.02.2016 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate 6th Court Calcutta being in accordance with law (Re expeditious trial of cases u/s 138 of the N.I. Act needs no interference. Revision dismissed.
Issues involved:
The issues involved in this judgment are the quashing of proceedings in connection with a complaint case u/s 138 read with Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 pending before the Court of the learned 6th Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta. Details of the judgment: The petitioner challenged the proceedings initiated against them, claiming the complaint to be fabricated and lacking essential ingredients to link them to the alleged offense. They argued that the complaint did not specify the petitioner's role, thus failing to establish a prima facie case. The petitioner contended that the process issued against them was an abuse of court process and violated Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure due to the petitioner residing in Delhi, outside the court's territorial jurisdiction. The petitioner emphasized that the magistrate must comply with the mandatory provision of Section 202 for cases involving accused persons residing beyond the court's jurisdiction. The petitioner's counsel argued that the allegations in the complaint were baseless and did not constitute the alleged offenses. They highlighted that the complaint lacked specific averments against the petitioner and failed to establish a prima facie case. The counsel contended that the magistrate mechanically issued process without determining if the complaint disclosed an offense, leading to an abuse of court process. Despite the petitioner's arguments, the opposite party did not appear or provide representation during the proceedings. The court referred to the relevant orders in the case, where the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate had taken cognizance of the offense and transferred the case to the 6th Metropolitan Magistrate for further proceedings. The court also discussed the provisions of Sections 200 and 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, emphasizing the importance of complying with these sections in cases involving offenses under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The court cited a Supreme Court ruling regarding the examination of witnesses on affidavit in cases under Section 138, stating that evidence of witnesses on behalf of the complainant should be permitted on affidavit, with the magistrate having the discretion to examine documents for sufficiency of grounds for proceeding. Ultimately, the court dismissed the revision petition, upholding the order passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate as being in accordance with the law. The court directed the certified copy of the judgment to be sent to the Trial Court for compliance and disposed of all connected applications, vacating any interim orders. Separate Judgment: No separate judgment was delivered by the judges in this case.
|
