N.G. Ramappa vs Sri. Bhimeesh, Sri. D. Devaraj and Smt. Lalithamma

K.N. Keshavanarayana, J.—In this petition filed u/s 482 of Cr.P.C., the petitioner has sought for setting aside of the order dated 26.4.2013 passed by the 7th Addl. C.M.M., Bangalore dismissing the private complaint filed by him in PCR No. 25549/2011 alleging the offence punishable under Sections 380, 468, 471 and 420 of IPC. Upon the presentation of the complaint by the petitioner, the learned Magistrate took cognizance of the aforesaid offences and proceeded to record the sworn statement of the complainant and his witnesses. After recording the sworn statement, the learned Magistrate heard the learned counsel appearing for the complainant and by the impugned order held that the present complaint is filed only as a counter blast after the respondent - accused persons filed complaints against him alleging offence punishable u/s 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act and that there are no materials to proceed against the accused for the aforesaid offences. Consequently, the learned Magistrate dismissed the complaint in exercise of power u/s 203 of Cr.P.C. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner has presented this petition inter-alia contending that the impugned order is perverse and illegal in as much as the learned Magistrate, without holding any enquiry as contemplated u/s 202 of Cr.P.C. and ignoring the materials produced by the complainant, has erroneously recorded a finding that there are no prima facie materials to proceed against the respondent - accused for the offences alleged.

Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and on perusal of the impugned order, I am of the considered opinion that there are no justified grounds to interfere with the order. As noticed supra, the learned Magistrate, after having taken cognizance, recorded sworn statement of the complainant as well as the witnesses as required u/s 200 of Cr.P.C. and thereafter, in terms of Section 203 of Cr.P.C. dismissed the complaint by recording a finding that there are no reasonable grounds to proceed against the accused persons.

It is well settled law by catena of decisions that after complying with the requirements of Section 200 of Cr.P.C., if the Magistrate finds no sufficient materials to proceed against the persons named as accused in the complaint, is empowered to dismiss the complaint u/s 203 of Cr.P.C. Section 203 of Cr.P.C. states that if, after considering the statements on oath (if any) of the complainant and of the witnesses and the result of the inquiry or investigation (if any) u/s 202 of Cr.P.C., the Magistrate is of the opinion that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding, he shall dismiss the complaint, and of course, in every such case, he shall briefly record his reasons for doing so. Enquiry contemplated u/s 202 of Cr.P.C. is not mandatory. It is only in the event of the Magistrate finding that the averments made in the complaint and the sworn statement of the complainant as well as his witnesses, if any, are not sufficient to proceed further, and if he is of the opinion that an enquiry as contemplated u/s 202 of Cr.P.C. is necessary, he may resort to an enquiry either by himself or he may direct an investigation by a police officer or by any other agency. The wordings of Section 203 of Cr.P.C. makes it clear that the investigation contemplated u/s 202 of Cr.P.C. is not mandatory. In terms of Section 203 of Cr.P.C., the Magistrate is empowered to dismiss the complaint even without conducting an enquiry or investigation u/s 202 of Cr.P.C., if he is of the opinion that the averments made in the complaint as well as the statements of the complainant and his witnesses are not sufficient to proceed with the case against the persons named as accused. Therefore, there is no substance in the contention in this regard.

Perusal of the impugned order clearly indicates that the learned Magistrate, on the basis of the averments made in the complaint as well as the statement of the complainant and his witnesses, has come to the conclusion that there are no sufficient materials to proceed against the accused persons. The learned Magistrate has recorded a finding that the present complaint is filed as a counter blast to the complaints filed by the respondent accused persons against him for the offence punishable u/s 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act in respect of the very Cheques. In this view of the matter, I find no illegality or irregularity committed by the learned Magistrate in dismissing the complaint in exercise of power conferred u/s 203 of Cr.P.C. It is open to the petitioner to urge all these contentions by way of defense in the prosecutions against him for the offence punishable u/s 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.

In view of the above, petition is dismissed.