PERIYASAMY Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE second respondent filed a private complaint before the learned Judicial Magistrate, No.I, Dindigul, against the petitioner alleging that the petitioner had committed offences punishable under Sections 379 and 420 I.P.C. THE crux of the allegation is that a cheque belonging to the second respondent was stolen by the petitioner and subsequently, the same was filled up to his convenience to file the private complaint against the petitioner under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. THE learned Magistrate referred the same to the first respondent under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C for investigation. THE said order of the learned Magistrate, passed under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. is under challenge in this petition.

(2.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner Mr.Anand would submit that the prayer in the complaint itself was only to take cognizance on the complaint filed by the second respondent and therefore, the learned Magistrate was not within his competence to refer the complaint to the police for investigation. He would further submit that the case under Section 138 N.I.Act, filed on the basis of the said cheque in question, is pending before the same Magistrate and this complaint has been preferred only out of malice.

(3.) THE second respondent has not made appearance since notice has not been served on him.