JOGY DAVID Vs. BABU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is by the petitioner / complainant against the orders of the Judicial First Class Magistrate - I, Muvattupuzha, dismissing the complaint filed by him under S.203 Crl. P.C. The petitioner / complainant laid a complaint before the Judicial First Class Magistrate - I, against the accused in the said complaint for an offence punishable under S.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act as well as for an offence under S.420 IPC with an allegation that the accused in the said complaint borrowed a sum of Rs. 50,000/- from him on 10.5.1996 and he assured repayment within one month and he did not repay the amount inspite of several demands. On 19.7.1998 a cheque was issued to the petitioner by the accused drawable at Canara Bank, Ernakulam, for a sum of Rs. 50,000/- and when the same was presented on 17.1.1997 by the petitioner with his bankers, viz., State Bank of India, Varapetty Branch, Muvattupuzha, it was returned dishonoured with an endorsement memo on 30.101997. The cheque was returned on two grounds, viz., it is a stale cheque and the funds in the account were insufficient. A notice as contemplated under the Act was issued to the accused. As the same did not evoke any response the petitioner filed the complaint which the learned Magistrate dismissed under S.203 Crl. P.C. holding that the memo of dishonour was on the ground that the cheque is a stale cheque.

(2.) Counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned Magistrate committed an error in not looking at the documents produced by him by dismissing the complaint even at the initial stage. He submits that even in the complaint he has alleged that a cheque dated 19.7.1996 issued by the accused for a sum of Rs. 50,000/- was presented by him with his bankers on 17.1.1997 ie., within six months as the period of six months will expire only on 20.1.1997. The reason given by the bankers of the accused that it is a stale cheque cannot be accepted as the petitioner has presented the cheque 3 days prior to the expiry of the period of six months.

(3.) I have perused Annexures - A3 and A4, Annexure - A3 shows that the cheque was returned on two grounds, viz, that is a stale cheque and the funds in the account were insufficient Though the petitioner has specifically alleged that he presented his cheque even on 17.1.1997 the learned Magistrate has not considered the said allegation, but simply dismissed the complaint saying that the cheque was dishonoured on the ground that it is a stale cheque. I feel, the learned Magistrate was not justified in dismissing the complaint under S.203 Crl. P.C. when there were allegations prima facie on the complaint itself. In any view, the order of the Judicial First Class Magistrate - I, Muvattupuzha, has to be set aside and accordingly it is set aside. The learned Magistrate is directed to take the complaint on file and dispose of the same according to law as expeditiously as possible.