2011 ALL MR (Cri) JOURNAL 2
(RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT)

MAHESH BHAGWATI, J.

Rakesh Bhatia Vs. Sudhir Kumar Methi

S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No.2197 of 2009

29th January, 2010

Petitioner Counsel: Mr. NAWAL SINGH SIKARWAR
Respondent Counsel: Mr. RITESH JAIN

Negotiable Instruments Act (1881) S.138 - Criminal P.C. (1973), Ss.203, 204 - Dishonour of cheque - Process issued - Accused appearing in court - Statement of complainant recorded - Accused afforded four opportunities to cross-examine witnesses - He did not avail said opportunities - He remained absent for a long time and then applied under S.203 to dismiss complaint - Held refusal of prayer to dismiss complaint was fully justified and did not suffer from any infirmity. (Para 2)

JUDGMENT

JUDGMENT :- Having heard learned counsel for the parties and carefully perused the impugned order dated 1.9.2009, it is noticed that one complaint under Sec.138 of Negotiable Instruments Act came to be filed in the Court, wherein the Court took cognizance of the offence under Sec.138 of Negotiable Instruments Act on 19.2.2008 and proceeded against the accused petitioner. The statements of the complainant was recorded on 6.1.2009 and the accused was granted four opportunities to cross-examine the witnesses but he did not avail the said opportunities. Thereafter, the accused petitioner remained absent and appeared in the Court on 25.8.2009. He filed an application under Sec.203 of Cr.P.C. praying to dismiss the complaint. He also prayed for an opportunity to be given to further cross-examine the complainant. Learned Trial Court having considered all the aspects dismissed the application filed under Sec.203 of Cr.P.C. and declined to grant any other opportunity to further cross-examine the complainant.

2. I am afraid, when the accused had appeared in the Court pursuant to the process issued under Sec.204 of Cr.P.C., whether could he file any application under Sec.203 of Cr.P.C. to dismiss the complaint. In my firm view, after putting appearance by the accused in the Court pursuant to the process issued under Sec.204 of Cr.P.C., the provisions of Sec.203 for dismissing the complaint are not attracted. The complaint under Sec.203 of Cr.P.C. is dismissed prior to the issuance of process under Sec.204 of Cr.P.C. only when the statements of the complainant as also the witnesses examined under Secs.200 and 202 of Cr.P.C. do not disclose any offence. In the case on hand, the accused petitioner was granted ample opportunities to cross-examine the complainant, but he did not avail the same. The learned Court below rightly dismissed the prayer of the petitioner. The impugned order is just and proper and suffers from no infirmity or illegality. I do not find any force in the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and thus, the criminal misc. petition being devoid of any substance deserves to be dismissed at the threshold.

3. In view of above, the criminal misc. petition filed under Sec.482 of Cr.P.C. stands dismissed as aforesaid.

Petition dismissed.