The common petitioner in these Crl.M.Cs assail separate
orders passed in all these cases by the learned Magistrate under
Section 204 Cr.P.C directing cognizance be taken against him
for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable
Instruments Act. All these criminal prosecutions are initiated by
the same common complainant against the petitioner herein.
There was one more case between the same parties and identical
challenge in respect of one of such cases - S.T.No.527 of 2007 of
J.F.C.M-III, Thiruvananthapuram has been considered and
disposed of by an earlier order passed today in
Crl.M.C.No.292/2008. This common order must be read in
continuation of that order.
Crl.M.C.No.303/2008 & conn.cases 2
2. Cognizance taken is assailed on the ground that
no enquiry under Section 202 Cr.P.C has been conducted
by the learned Magistrate though the petitioners/accused does
not reside within the jurisdiction of the learned Magistrate. I
have already taken the view in Crl.M.C.No.292/2008 that it is not
invariable that in every such case the Magistrate must proceed
to conduct an enquiry under Section 202 Cr.P.C even when the
indictee hails from an area outside the jurisdiction of the
Magistrate. The crucial question is whether the requisite
satisfaction can be entertained by the Magistrate on the basis of
the materials made available before him. In all these cases the
averments in the complaint considered in the light of the
documents produced as also the affidavit of the complainant filed
under Section 145 Cr.P.C to satisfy the requirement of
examination of the complainant under Section 200 Cr.P.C are,
according to me, absolutely sufficient to entertain the requisite
satisfaction that there is sufficient ground to proceed against the
accused. I have dealt with identical challenge in detail in the
order passed in Crl.M.C.No.292/2008. Same reasons apply in
these cases also. I am, in these circumstances, satisfied that the
challenge raised in all these Crl.M.Cs does not deserve to be
Crl.M.C.No.303/2008 & conn.cases 3
upheld and the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C do not deserve
to be invoked to quash the proceedings initiated against the
petitioner which is challenged in these Crl.M.Cs.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
the petitioner intends to file an application under the proviso to
Section 218(1) Cr.P.C requesting the Magistrate for a direction
that the allegations in all these cases including the allegation in
S.T.No.527/2007 be considered in a common trial. The learned
counsel for the respondent submits that the respondent also can
and does have no objection whatsoever against such procedure
to be followed which would contribute to expeditious disposal of
the cases and also avoidable repetition of unnecessary non-
productive work of the court and the counsel. If the petitioner
makes such an application under the proviso to Section 218(1)
Cr.P.C the learned Magistrate must consider such application on
merits and pass appropriate orders.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner then contends
that there are as many as fifty nine cases filed against the
petitioner by the same complainant raising identical allegations
and if personal presence of the petitioner were not dispensed
with and the petitioner were not permitted to be represented by
Crl.M.C.No.303/2008 & conn.cases 4
a counsel, unnecessary hardship, difficulties and inconvenience
will have to be suffered by the petitioner.
5. I am satisfied that the petitioner can appear before
the learned Magistrate and after his plea is recorded make an
application for exemption. The learned Magistrate, I have no
reason to assume, shall insist on the personal appearance of the
petitioner on all dates of trial. The petitioner can make
appropriate application and the learned Magistrate must
consider such application and pass appropriate orders.
6. Finally, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits
that if the same set of sureties were not accepted in all the fifty
nine cases, that would cause great hardship and inconvenience
to the petitioner. The petitioner can make a request to the
learned Magistrate on that aspect also and I find no reason why
the learned Magistrate should not accept the same.
7. With the above observations, these Crl.M.Cs are
dismissed.
(R.BASANT, JUDGE)
jsr
Crl.M.C.No.303/2008 & conn.cases 5
Crl.M.C.No.303/2008 & conn.cases 6
R.BASANT, J.
09/07/2008