Kailash Chand Jain vs N. Seetharaman and Others

K.N. Basha, J.—Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has come forward in all these petitions seeking for a direction

to set aside the impugned orders passed by the learned Magistrate, dismissed the complaints filed by the petitioner for the offence punishable u/s

138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.

It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is the complainant in all the complaints. It is also submitted by the

learned Counsel for the petitioner that in all the complaints, the date of the disputed cheques and amount borrowed by the accused and also in

respect of the presentation, thereafter date of statutory notice given are clearly stated. It is also contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner

that the petitioner has followed the mandatory requirements contemplated u/s 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. It is further contended by the

learned Counsel for the petitioner that after recording the sworn statements of the petitioner, the learned Magistrate has dismissed all the

complaints mainly on the ground that the complainant has not given the details about the payment of loan, date of cheque and presentation of the

cheque, in the sworn statements. It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that in view of the specific allegations contained in the

complaints itself in respect of all the details of payment of loan, date of issuance of cheque and the presentation of the same, the petitioner, as a

complainant need not give all the details in the sworn statement.

It is further contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that while recording the sworn statement the petitioner/complainant was not

allowed to peruse the cheques and other relevant documents to verify the dates and other particulars. Therefore, it is contended by the learned

Counsel for the petitioner that the impugned order passed by the learned Magistrate, dismissing the complaints filed by the petitioner/complainant

for the offence punishable u/s 138, Negotiable Instruments Act, is liable to be set aside.

Learned Counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the decision of this Court reported in Mukesh Jain Vs. Balachandar, , in support of his

contention.

I have carefully considered the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner and also perused the impugned orders passed by the

learned Magistrate.

It is seen that the petitioner is the complainant in all these cases and he has filed the complaints for the offence punishable u/s 138 of Negotiable

Instruments Act. A perusal of the impugned order discloses that the learned Magistrate has dismissed the complaints merely on the ground that the

petitioner/complainant in his sworn statements has not given certain particulars regarding the date of transaction of money, date of cheque, date of

presentation of the cheque into bank, name of the bank in which the cheque was presented and in respect of the dates of statutory notice given by

the petitioner.

At the outset, this Court is of the considered view that the learned Magistrate has committed a serious error of law while passing the impugned

order. The undisputed fact remains that the complaints preferred by the petitioner contained al I the necessary details viz., the date of each amount

given as loan to the accused, date of cheque, date of presentation of the cheque before the particular bank, date of issuing statutory notice, etc. It

is also seen that the petitioner complied with the mandatory requirements contemplated u/s 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. Learned Magistrate

simply overlooked the details contained in the complaints and only perused the sworn statements and dismissed all the complaints. It is also rightly

pointed out by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner/complainant was not permitted to peruse the document viz., cheque and

other documents at the time of giving the sworn statements.

In a similar matter, this Court has considered this aspect in Mukesh & Jain S/o Prem Chanel v. Balachander (supra), which reads as follows:

The complainant has to be read along with the sworn statement of the complainant recorded u/s 200 of Criminal Procedure Code and they

should not be read disjunctively, since they supplement and complement each other. The scheme and purport of Sections 200, 203 and 204 of the

Code are not sufficient to show that the averments in the complaint are not to be looked into for the purpose of taking a decision either to dismiss a

complaint u/s 203 or to issue process u/s 204 of the Code. This is made clear by the reference in Section 203 to the words ""if any"" occurring after

the words ""statement on oath of the complainant"". This makes it clear that complaint is also, at any rate, one of the records to be looked into for

the purpose of taking a decision u/s 203 or 204 of the Code. It cannot be said that Court can look into sworn statement only and not the complaint

itself.

This Court is of the considered view that the principle laid down by this Court in the decision cited supra is clearly applicable to the instant case.

In this case also the learned Magistrate simply overlooked the averments and allegations contained in the complaints and by placing reliance on the

sworn statements, dismissed the complaints held that there is no prima facie case made out for the offence u/s 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.

It is also seen from the perusal of the impugned orders that the learned Magistrate has ignored the procedure contemplated u/s 203 of Cr.P.C. It is

very clear that the allegations contained in the complaint to be taken along with the sworn statement which is made crystal clear that the prima facie

case u/s 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act clearly made out.

Therefore, this Court is constrained to set aside the impugned order passed by the learned Magistrate in all these applications. Accordingly, the

impugned orders passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate No. 1, May iladuthurai in C.C. Nos. 922, 921, 923, 924, 925, 926, 927, 928 of 2003

are set aside. Learned Judicial Magistrate No. 1, Mayiladuthurai is directed to take all the above complaints on file and proceed further in

accordance with law.

Accordingly, the revision is allowed.