BANSHILAL Vs. ABDUL MUNNAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ARGUMENTS heard. This is a petition, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code'), for quashing the proceedings pending against the petitioner as MJC No. 754/2008 in the Court of JMFC, Waidhan. In that case, cognizance of the offence punishable under Section 138 of the negotiable Instruments Act (for short 'the Act') was taken upon a complaint made by the respondent. However, before directing the issuance of process under S. 204 of the Code, the learned Magistrate did not examine the complainant (respondent here ).

(2.) IN reply, while inviting attention to the contents of the corresponding order dated 22/8/2008, respondent has submitted that the direction to issue process was given only after taking into consideration the affidavit filed by him in lieu of his oral examination under S. 200 of the Code.

(3.) PLACING reliance on a recent decision of the Supreme Court in National small Industries Corporation Limited v. State (NCT Delhi (2009)1 SCC 407, learned counsel for the petitioner has strenuously contended that examination of the complainant under S. 200 of the Code is mandatory. In that case, while explaining the rationale behind exemption of a public servant from the mandatory examination under S. 200, the Apex Court quoted the following observations made in Associated Cement Co. Ltd. v. Keshavanand (1998) 1 SCC 687) with approval -