N. Dhinakar, J.@mdashThis petition is by the petitioner/complainant against the orders of the Judicial First Class Magistrate-1, Muvattupuzha, dismissing the complaint filed by him u/s 203 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The petitioner/complainant laid a complaint before the Judicial First Class Magistrate-I, against the accused mentioned in the said complaint for an offence punishable u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act as well as for an offence u/s 420 of the Indian Penal Code with an allegation that the accused in the said complaint borrowed a sum of Rs. 50,000 from him on May 10, 1996, and he assured repayment within one month and he did not repay the amount in spite of several demands. On July 19, 1996, a cheque was issued to the petitioner by the accused drawable at Canara Bank, Ernakulam, for a sum of Rs. 50,000 and when the same was presented on January 17, 1997, by the petitioner to his bankers, viz., State Bank of India, Varapetty Branch, Muvattupuzha, it was returned dishonoured with an endorsement memo on January 30, 1997. The cheque was returned on two grounds, viz., it is a stale cheque and the funds in the account were insufficient. A notice as contemplated under the Act was issued to the accused. As the same did not evoke any response, the petitioner filed the complaint which the learned Magistrate dismissed u/s 203 of the Criminal Procedure Code holding that the memo of dishonour was on the ground that the cheque is a stale cheque.
2. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned Magistrate committed an error in not looking at the documents produced by him by dismissing the complaint even at the initial stage. He submits that even in the complaint he has alleged that a cheque dated July 19, 1996, issued by the accused for a sum of Rs. 50,000 was presented by him to his bankers on January 17, 1997, i.e., within six months as the period of six months will expire only on January 20, 1997. The reason given by the bankers of the accused that it is a stale cheque cannot be accepted as the petitioner has presented the cheque three days prior to the expiry of the period of six months.
3. I have perused annexures A-3 and A-4. Annexure A-3 shows that the cheque was returned on two grounds, viz., that it is a stale cheque and the funds in the account were insufficient. Though the petitioner has specifically alleged that he presented his cheque even on January 17, 1997, the learned Magistrate has not considered the said allegation, but simply dismissed the complaint saying that the cheque was dishonoured on the ground that it is a stale cheque. I feel the learned Magistrate was not justified in dismissing the complaint u/s 203 of the Criminal Procedure Code when there were allegations prima facie in the complaint itself. In my view, the order of the Judicial First Class Magistrate-I, Muvattupuzha, has to be set aside and accordingly it is set aside. The learned Magistrate is directed to take the complaint on file and dispose of the same according to law as expeditiously as possible.
