Sri T.S. Naveen vs Sri. K.C. Sathish

H.N. Nagamohan Das, J.—In this petition the petitioner has prayed for quashing the proceedings in C.C. No. 603/2011 pending on the file of JMFC, Mandya. Respondent filed a complaint against the petitioner u/s 200 Cr. P.C. in P.C.R. No. 62/2011 for the offences punishable u/s 138 N.I. Act. The trial Court vide order dated 19.08.2011 had taken the cognizance of the offence, registered the case and issued process and the same reads as under:

Perused complaint allegations sworn statement and documents produced and exhibited by the complainant in the sworn statement. By perusal of the same it appears that the accused issued the cheque in the name of the complainant to discharge his debt or liability and the said cheque was dishonoured and returned as bounced. Though statutory notice was issued to the accused. The accused did not comply with the same. Therefore, the complainant has made out a prima facie case to proceed against the accused for the offence punishable u/s 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act and there are sufficient grounds to proceed against the accused. Therefore, it is a fit case wherein process can be issued against the accused. Hence I proceed to pass the following:

ORDER

Cognizance of the offence punishable u/s 138 of N.I. Act against the accused is taken. Copies furnished. Register the case in Register No. III. Issue process against the accused for the offences punishable u/s 138 of NI Act if P.F. is paid.

Accordingly, petitioner entered appearance and he was enlarged on bail.

The grievance of the petitioner is that he is residing at Bangalore and the proceedings are initiated in the Court at Mandya. In the circumstances, it is obligatory on the part of the trial Court to hold enquiry u/s 202(2) Cr. P.C. before issuing process. In the instant case, without holding an enquiry the trial Court has issued the process and on this ground the proceedings are liable to be quashed. I decline to accept this contention. In the complaint filed by the respondent it is specifically stated that petitioner approached the respondent, borrowed money and issued cheque. The cheque was presented by the respondent through his banker at Mandya for encashment and the same was dishonoured. By considering these averments and also by considering the averments made in the sworn statement and the documents exhibited, the trial Court held that respondent has made out a prima-face case. This finding of the trial Court is as contemplated u/s 202 Cr. P.C. Even otherwise, it is always open for the petitioner to urge the contention relating to the jurisdiction. In that event, the trial Court to consider the same in accordance with law. I find no irregularity in the impugned order. Accordingly, the petition is hereby dismissed.