Y. Venkateswara Rao v. M/S. Mahee Handlooms (P) Ltd., Rep. By Its Managing Director And Others

1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the Public Prosecutor.

2. This petition is directed under Sec. 482 Cr.P.C to call for the records relating to C.C No. 184/1991 on the file of the VI Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad and to quash the same and direct the learned Magistrate to proceed further as contemplated under Chapter XV of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in brief ‘the Code’).

3. The petitioner filed a criminal case under Sec. 200 Cr.P.C against the respondents 1 and 2 under Secs. 138 and 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The said complaint was filed under date 19-2-1991. On the same day the learned Magistrate referred the case under Sec. 156(3) of the Code to the police for further enquiry; on 20-2-1991 on the basis of the said complaint a crime was registered in Cr. No. 40/91 on the file of P.S Amberpet; they further enquired into the matter and laid charge-sheet against the respondents 1 and 2 which was taken cognizance by the learned Magistrate and while he was proceeding further, alleging that taking cognizance of the case by the Magistrate on a police report is not warranted as per the provisions of Sec. 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the revision petitioner-complainant filed the present criminal petition.

4. Sec. 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act in so far as it is relevant reads as follows:

“142. Cognizance of Offences: Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) (a) no court shall take cognizance of any offence punishable under Sec. 138 except upon a complaint, in writing, made by the payee, or, as the case may be, the holder in due course of the cheque:”

5. As evidenced by Sec. 142(a) of the Negotiable Instruments Act no court shall take cognizance of any offence punishable under Sec. 138 except upon a complaint in writing made by the payee or as the case may be, the holder in due course of the cheque. In the present case, the case was taken cognizance on a police complaint and consequently, as rightly submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the complaint is not taken on file properly. In view of the provisions of Sec. 142(a) of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the proceedings in C.C 184/91 on the file of VI Metropolitan Magistrate are quashed on and from referring the case by the learned Magistrate under Sec. 156(3) of the Code and thereafter. The Learned Magistrate shall proceed further with the case in accordance with the provisions of Chapter XV of the Code and dispose of the same in accordance with law.