AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
7 paragraphs · 275 wordsB.K. Nayak, J. - Heard learned counsel for the parties.
Order dated 01.08.2015 passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Angul in ICC case No. 580 of 2015 taking cognizance for offences under Section 138 of the N.I. Act and directing issuance of process against the petitioner has been assailed in this application under Section 482, Cr.P.C.
The only ground urged on behalf of the petitioner is that no statement of the complainant was recorded under Section 200, Cr.P.C. by the learned S.D.J.M., Angul before passing order of cognizance.
There is no dispute that the statement of the complainant was on affidavit which has been taken into account by the learned S.D.J.M., for reaching satisfaction about prima facie case, for cognizance.
Law is settled by the Hon''ble Apex Court in the case of A.C. Narayanan v. State of Maharashtra, reported in AIR 2014 Supreme Court 630 wherein their lordships have been pleased to hold as follows :
"In the light of Section 145 of N.I. Act, it is open to the Magistrate to rely upon the verification in the form of affidavit filed by the complainant in support of the complaint under Section 138 of the N.I. Act and the Magistrate is neither mandatorily obliged to call upon the complainant to remain present before the Court, nor to examine the complainant or his witness upon oath for taking the decision whether or not to issue process on the complainant under Section 138 of the N.I. Act."
In view of the decision of the Hon''ble Apex Court, there is no infirmity in the impugned order of taking cognizance. Hence the CRLMC is dismissed.