SHANTI VEDANAYAGAM Vs. P GOVARDHANAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision has been preferred against the order passed by XVIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai. in Crl. M. P. No. 8298 of 2002 in C. C. No. 7268 of 2001, a petition filed under Section 245 of Cr. P. C. requesting the Court to discharge the accused from the complaint.

(2.) HEARD the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner who would attack the order of the learned Judicial Magistrate on two grounds. (1) A petition filed under Section 245 of Cr. P. C. in a private complaint filed under Section 200 of Cr. P. C. for an offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act 1881 itself is not maintainable and 2) an order allowing the petition filed under Section 245 of Cr. P. C. on the ground that the complaint is not maintainable under Section 142 of Negotiable Instruments Act is not also a sound reasoning.

(3.) ADMITTEDLY, in the case on hand, no witness was examined by the trial Judge. The learned trial Judge has discharged the accused on the ground that in the complaint, the complainant's name alone figures and the name of the power of attorney was not mentioned in the cause title. So the learned Judicial Magistrate has come to a conclusion that the complaint itself is not maintainable under Section 142 of Negotiable Instruments Act and accordingly allowed the petition filed by the accused with a request the discharge him from the complaint preferred under Section 200 of Cr. P. C. for an offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.