N.H.RAJU Vs. THIRTHAHALLI AVISHKAR SOUHARDHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Respondent No.1-Union had filed a private complaint under Sec. 200 Cr.P.C. for the offence punishable under Sec. 138 of the N.I. Act and 420 of IPC alleging that the petitioner-accused No.9 and other accused had not returned the amount invested by the members of the Union in the form of shares and the cheque issued by accused No.1 when presented for realisation was dishonoured for want of funds.

(2.) On the submission made by the Learned counsel for the complainant, that the complainant would proceed against the accused person for the offence punishable under Sec. 420 of IPC, the learned Magistrate referred the matter to the police for investigation under Sec. 156(3) Cr.P.C. for the offence punishable under Sec. 420 of IPC. Thereafter, the police registered an FIR for the offence punishable under Ss. 420 of IPC and also under Sec. 138 of the N.I. Act, against the petitioner (A9) and other accused. Taking exception to the same, this Criminal Petition is filed.

(3.) Sri C V Nagesh, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the complaint filed without complying with Sec. 154(1) and (3) of Cr.P.C . is not maintainable as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Priyanka Srivastava and Another vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others reported in (2015) 6 Supreme Court Cases 287. He further submits that in the absence of any specific allegation as against the petitioner/accused No.9, the registration of the FIR for the offence punishable under Sec. 420 of IPC and also under Sec. 138 of the N.I. Act is impermissible. Respondent No.1-complainant, though served with notice, has remained absent.