SACHIN AGARWAL Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the applicant and the learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

(2.) THIS is a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C for quashing the proceedings of complaint case No. 58/IX/10, Atul Agarwal v. Sachin Agarwal pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate-Vth, Mathura.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the applicant submitted that the learned Magistrate has not examined the complainant under Section 200 Cr.P.C nor made any inquiry under Section 202 Cr.P.C, therefore, the summoning order on the basis of the affidavit of the respondent No. 2 was bad in law. It was next submitted that the order-sheet maintained in the complaint case, nowhere discloses that any affidavit was filed on behalf of the applicant. Therefore, the reference of the affidavit in the summoning order has no relevance. It was next submitted that there was no liability of the applicant towards any debt or any other similar transactions, therefore, the offence under Section 138 of the Act was not made out. In this connection, learned counsel for the applicant placed reliance upon the case of Krishna Janardhan Bhat v. Dattatraya G. Hegde, (2008) 2 SCC (Cri) 166.