2013 (1) TMI 954 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues involved: The main grievance of the petitioners is the issuance of process without following the High Court's order in a writ petition. The challenge is against the order of the learned trial Magistrate for the offence u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

Judgment Details:

Issue 1: Compliance with High Court's Order
The High Court had directed the learned trial Magistrate to hold an inquiry u/s 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Magistrate, after the High Court's order, recorded the complainant's statement and issued a fresh process against the petitioners for the offence u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The petitioner contended that the Magistrate did not comply with the High Court's order.

Issue 2: Scope of Inquiry in Section 138 Cases
The respondent argued that in cases u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, there is limited scope for inquiry as the case is mainly based on documents. The Magistrate, in compliance with the High Court's order, recorded the complainant's statement and issued a fresh process.

Issue 3: Duty of the Trial Magistrate
The High Court emphasized that while the trial Magistrate has limited scope for detailed inquiry in Section 138 cases, they should not ignore the High Court's order. The Magistrate should have examined the allegations in the complaint to determine if further inquiry was necessary before issuing the process.

Precedent and Direction
The High Court referred to previous judgments regarding the nature of inquiries u/s 202(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Even though such inquiries are considered directory, the trial Magistrate was obligated to follow the High Court's directions. The High Court set aside the Magistrate's order and directed a limited inquiry to decide on issuing the process.

Conclusion
The High Court quashed the order of the learned Magistrate and directed a brief inquiry to determine if a process should be issued. The Magistrate was instructed to decide on issuing the process against all the petitioners after the inquiry. The petition was disposed of accordingly, and the complainant was to appear before the trial Magistrate on a specified date.