9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (1) TMI 954X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hable under Section 138 read with Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. 2. Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 had filed complaint bearing No. 16047 of 2010 in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Nagpur against the petitioners for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Statement of the complainants/respondents on oath was recorded for verification of the correctness of the complaint and a process was issued against the applicants to answer the charge for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act on 16th December, 2010. The said order was challenged before this Court in Writ Petition No. 138 of 2011. This Court (Coram: A.P. Bhangale, J) while finally deciding the s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sh process. It is contended by Mr. Joshi that the learned trial Court failed to comply the order passed by this Hon'ble Court. 5. Learned counsel Mr. Bhattad appearing on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 and 2 has submitted that in the cases under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act there is hardly any scope for detail inquiry and that the Magistrate in compliance with the order of this Court had recorded statement of the complainant and had proceeded to pass fresh order. It is submitted by Mr. Bhattad that the learned trial Court could not have done any further inquiry as the case of respondent Nos. 1 and 2 is mainly based on the documents. 6. No doubt, the learned trial Magistrate has a very little scope for detail inquiry in t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... m the petitioners and under what circumstances the cheque was issued by way of part-payment of the said total due amount. The inquiry into this part of the complaint would have assisted the learned trial Magistrate to ascertain whether there was a prima facie case to hold that the cheque in question was issued in discharge of debt or liability. In my considered opinion, recording of statement of the complainant which is nothing more than the verification statement already recorded cannot be considered to be an inquiry under Section 202(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 8. In this regard, it may be noted here that this Court in the case of Bansilal S. Kabra Vs. Global Trade Finance Ltd., reported at 2010(2) Bom. C.R. (Cri.) 754 : [2010 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rocess can be issued and if yes, against which of the accused. Hence, I pass the following order. i) The order passed by learned Magistrate on 16th January, 2012 in Summary Criminal Case No. 16047 of 2010 issuing process against the petitioners is quashed and set aside. ii) The learned Magistrate is directed to hold a brief inquiry as indicated herein above and to decide as to whether a process can be issued. If the learned Magistrate decides to issue process, he shall simultaneously decide as to whether process could be issued against all the petitioners. iii) The petition stands disposed of accordingly. iv) Stay stands vacated. v) The complainant shall appear before the learned trial Magistrate on 16th January, 2013. Certified copy ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
