MAHARAJA DEVELOPERS Vs. UDAYSING PRATAPSINGHRAO BHONSLE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The issue which has been referred to this Bench is, "Is it mandatory for the Magistrate to examine the complainant who has filed complaint under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act with affirmation as regards truthfulness of the facts mentioned in the complaint before issue of process under S. 200 of Cr. P. C. -

(2.) It so happened that H. H. Maharaja Udaysingh Bhonsle s/o late H. H. Maharaja Pratapsinghrao Bhonsle resident of Junior Bhonsla Palace, Mahal, Nagpur (hereinafter referred to as "the complainant") filed a complaint in writing on 21-4-2006 against Maharaja Developers and Vijay Tulsiramji Dangre (hereinafter referred to as "the accused") under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (hereinafter referred to as "the N.I. Act") on account of dishonour of cheques issued by the accused in favour of the complainant and his sister. The said complaint contained a solemn affirmation by the complainant at the foot of it. The complainant also filed certain documents along with the complaint. On perusal of the complaint and the documents filed with it, the learned Magistrate was satisfied that there was prima facie case to proceed against the accused. Hence by order dated 28-4-2006 he directed issuance of process against the accused under Section 204 of Cr. P. C. for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I. Act.

(3.) The accused challenged the order of issuance of process by preferring Criminal Revision No. 624/2006 on the ground amongst others that there was no proper inquiry into the complaint as laid down in Sections 200 to 202 of Cr. P. C. (Chapter XV), that there was no verification of the complaint by the Magistrate and the issuance of process was erroneous. The learned 3rd Ad hoc Additional Sessions Judge rejected the revision by order dated 24-8-2006.