JUDGMENT :- Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of respective parties, matter is taken up for hearing.

2. At the outset, Shri. S. S. Choudhari, learned counsel for applicant stipulates that the challenge is to the legality of the order of issuance of process and, therefore, quashing of the proceedings is not pressed at this stage.

3. Respondent No.2 Shri. Vyas Dhanwarsha Sahakari Bank Ltd., Yaval, had advanced loan of Rs.3 lakhs in the category of "hypothecation cash credit loan". Entire loan of Rs.3 lakhs was withdrawn by the applicant on 20th October, 2000. The loan was to be repaid on or before 20th September, 2001. As repayment was not done, applicant issued a cheque drawn on Janata Sahakari Bank Ltd., Jalgaon. The cheque was presented for encashment but was dishonoured. After service of notice as applicant failed to make repayment within stipulated period, Respondent No.2 initiated proceedings in respect of offence punishable under S.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and 420 of the Indian Penal Code, in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Yaval.

4. After complaint was filed, the matter was argued on the point of limitation. As the learned Magistrate was convinced that proceeding is initiated within the prescribed period of limitation he proceeded to consider the allegation and on finding that prima facie case has been made out, passed a detailed order for issue of process on 26th November, 2002. In due course, applicant appeared and the matter was posted for recording of plea of the accused from time to time. When the matter was ripe for being taken up for hearing, Respondent No.2 found that on account of inadvertence verification was not recorded. He, therefore, filed an application on 29th March, 2005 for curing of the irregularity. No order has been passed on this application. In the circumstances, the applicant approached this Court for quashing of the entire proceedings on the ground that verification is not recorded.

5. It is not in dispute that the act of verification is to be performed by the Court. The complainant cannot be penalized for omission to record verification by the Court. It is also not in dispute that the parameters for quashing of the entire proceeding are quite different, in as much as for quashing of proceeding, it has to be established that either there is no cause of action or the proceeding would amount to an abuse of process of Court. This is not the case here. In this view of the matter, prayer is rightly restricted only to the legality of the impugned order of issuing process passed on 20th November, 2002. Time and again, provisions of Section 200 of the Criminal Procedure Code, has been interpreted by this Court. Section 200 itself makes it clear that verification is mandatory. It would be appropriate to reproduce relevant portion of Section 200, Cr.P.C. at this juncture:

"200 : A Magistrate taking cognizance of an offence on complaint shall examine upon oath the complainant and the witnesses present, if any, and the substance of such examination shall be reduced to writing and shall be signed by the complainant and the witnesses, and also by the Magistrate:

Provided that, when the complaint is made in writing, the Magistrate need not examine the complainant and the witnesses -

(a) ……

(b) ……"

6. Recording of verification is not a mere formality. By recording verification, the Magistrate has to ascertain whether the complaint is genuine or frivolous. The object of verification is to discourage frivolous proceeding. The Magistrate has to apply his mind to the facts of the case and to decide whether all formalities are completed and whether ground to proceed with the matter for redressal of genuine grievance exist. This aspect has been dealt with by the Apex Court in the matter of S. W. Palnitkar & Ors. Vs. State of Bihar & Anr. reported in (2002)1 sec 241. The Apex Court has observed in para No.I5 as under:

"15. In case of a complaint under section 200, Cr.P.C

Click Here to Read the rest of this document