The accused does not have a right to cross-examine the complainant or his witnesses during the inquiry under Section 202 of the Criminal Procedure Code.

JUDGMENT - 1. This application is filed by the complainant against the order of the learned Presidency Magistrate, 24th Court, Borivli, dismissing his complaint against the opponents under section 203 of the Criminal Procedure Code.

2. The complainant has filed a complaint against the opponents charging them with offences under sections 384, 385, 387, 220, 467 and 166 read with section 114 of the Indian Penal Code. In this complaint it was alleged that Opponents Nos. 1 and 2 (who will hereafter be referred to as accused Nos. 1 and 2) were brothers doing kariana business at Carter Road, Borivli, in the name and style of Shashikant Suryakant Parekh and that the complainant himself did simitar business and had business dealings with the shop of accused Nos. 1 and 2 through their Mehta by name Nemichand. The complainant alleged that Nemichand used to bring the goods bought by him from the shop of accused Nos. 1 and 2 with the bills prepared by those two accused and take his signature on the counterfoils in token of having received the goods. He further alleged that in all 7 bills of different dates were sent to him by accused Nos. 1 and 2 and that they were all paid oft" through Nemichand. The complainant further alleged that on 20th April 1962 accused Nos. 1 and 2 sent a Bhayya to him at about 10 p. m. with a message that he was required urgently at their place and that in response io that message he went to the shop of accused Nos. 1 and 2. When he reached the shop, besides accused Nos. 1 and 2, accused No. 4 who was then the sub-inspector at Borivli police station and another man named Virji were also present in the shop. The complainant asked accused No. 4 as to why he was sent for. Accused No. 4 stated that Nemichand had misappropriated the moneys of accused Nos. 1 and 2, that a sum of Rs. 30,000/- was due from him (the complainant) to accused Nos. 1 and 2 and that he should pay that amount on pain of being put in the lock-up. The complainant told accused No. 4 that he had nothing to pay to accused Nos. 1 and 2 since he had paid for all tho goods received by him from them and that all the bills in respect of those goods were signed by Nemichand in token of his having received the amount thereof. Thereafter accused No. 4 took the com-plainant to the police station and from there he was taken to his own shop at about 2.30 a. m. for verify ing the bills. According to the complainant, all tie bills except the last one which could not be traced at mat time were seized by accused No. 4 and taken to the police station along with the complainant. The complainant further alleged that at about 5.30 a. m. on 21st April, 1962, accused No. 3 who was the senior grade sub-inspector at Borivli Police station came to the office and had a talk with accused No. 4 in English and that accused No. 3 thereafter threatened him to pay. Rs. 30,000/- to accused Nos. 1 and 2 or else be prepared to be put in jail. According to the complainant, accused Nos. 3 and 4 then left the Police station, saying that accused Nos. 1 and 2 should talk with the complainant. The complainant alleged in his complaint that accused Nos. 1 and 2 thereafter told him to pay at least half the amount i. e. Rs. 15,000 and further told him that if that amount was paid they would sea that he was allowed to go from the Police Station. Finding himself in a difficult situation, the complainant, it was alleged in the complaint, agreed to procure a sum of Rs. 5,000 in cash and execute bundles in respect of the balance of Rs. 10,000. The complainant then slated that accused No. 4 accompanied by accused Nos. 1 and 2 went tp the house of the complainant and there the complainant arranged to collect Rs. 5000 and on the collection being made, that amount was paid over to accused Nos. 1 and 2 at the police station in the presence of accused Nos. 3 and 4 at about 7.30 a. m. Three hundies, two of Rs. 2500/- each and one of Rs. 5000 were thereafter executed and separately dated by the complainant

Click Here to Read the rest of this document