9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Summoning order challenged by the petitioner. 2. Compliance with Section 200 Cr.P.C. regarding pre-summoning evidence. 3. Whether the complainant tendered her affidavit as required. Analysis: 1. The respondent filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act alleging a loan transaction where the petitioner issued a cheque that bounced due to 'Stop payment.' The petitioner claimed innocence, attributing the incident to a stolen blank cheque filled by a third party. The High Court emphasized that such disputed facts are for trial court determination and not to be decided in the present proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The summoning order was found valid as evidence was recorded, and arguments were heard before summoning the petitioner. 2. The petitioner contended that pre-summoning evidence was not recorded as per Section 200 Cr.P.C. However, the court noted that the complainant was present, and evidence by way of affidavit was filed in the court, satisfying the requirement. The court clarified that the pre-summoning evidence was indeed recorded, and the summoning order was legally sound. 3. Another argument raised was the complainant's failure to tender her affidavit, questioning the compliance with Section 200 Cr.P.C. The court referred to a Kerala High Court judgment, highlighting that the sworn statement of the complainant qualifies as evidence under Section 200 Cr.P.C. The court explained that the complainant's affidavit need not be insisted upon at that stage, and the proceedings were considered an inquiry. Therefore, the court dismissed the petition, emphasizing that the observations made would not prejudice the petitioner's case during the trial court proceedings.
|
