2007 (12) TMI 542 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues involved:
The judgment deals with the issue of quashing a criminal complaint u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act based on technical grounds and the validity of the Magistrate's actions in the case.

Issue 1: Quashing of proceedings based on technical grounds

The petitioner sought to quash the proceedings on the grounds that the Magistrate's order of 10.04.2003, dismissing the complaint for default, was final and the subsequent restoration of the complaint and issuance of summons were unwarranted. The petitioner relied on a Supreme Court judgment stating that once a complaint is dismissed for non-appearance, it is a final order and cannot be restored. The petitioner argued that the Magistrate should not have reopened the case and taken cognizance of the offence.

Decision: The Court noted that the order of 10.04.2003 was not a final order taking cognizance of the offence but an office endorsement due to the complainant's absence. The subsequent restoration of the complaint on 24.04.2003 and the issuance of summons were based on a judicial order. The Court held that the Magistrate had the power to restore the complaint and proceed with the case, dismissing the petition to quash the proceedings.

Issue 2: Jurisdiction of the Magistrate in taking cognizance

The respondent argued that the Magistrate's order on 24.04.2003, taking cognizance of the offence, was within his power. The respondent cited a case law stating that courts possess inherent powers necessary for the administration of justice. It was contended that the Magistrate's actions were justified and well within his jurisdiction.

Decision: The Court examined the provisions of Section 200 Cr.P.C, which mandate the examination of the complainant before taking cognizance of an offence. As the complaint was by a private party, the presence and examination of the complainant were necessary. The Court found that the Magistrate had dismissed the complaint for default before issuing process to the accused, which was premature. However, since no prejudice was caused to the accused, the Court upheld the Magistrate's actions as being in line with the procedure prescribed under the law.

In conclusion, the Court dismissed the petition seeking to quash the proceedings, finding that the Magistrate's actions were within his jurisdiction and did not prejudice the accused.