2011(2) Crimes 178 (M.P.)
MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Indrani Dutta, J.
Mohan Mandelia —Petitioner
versus
State of M.P. & Another —Respondents
Misc. Criminal Case No. 2853 of 2008
Decided on 22.10.2010
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Petitioner No. 1:Mohan Mandelia by Shri R.K. Sharma, Advocate.
For the Petitioner No. 2:Sant Kumar Sharma by Shri Prashant Sharma, Advocates.
For the Respondent/State: Shri T.C. Bansal, Public Prosecutor.
For the Respondent:Rakesh Yadav v. Shri A.R. Shivhare, Shri G.M. Soni and Shri Atul Gupta, Advocates.
IMPORTANT POINT
When Magistrate takes a cognizance of a complaint presented before him, a person mentioned in the array of accused does not assume status of “accused”.
Headnote:(i) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973—Section 2(g), 202—Negotiable Instruments Act 1881—Section 138—Indian Penal Code, 1860—Section 417, 418, 420, 466, 468, 471 & 120 B—Cheque for Rs.39 lacs alleged to have been issued towards repayment of loan was returned unpaid—Complainant when received cheque back it was found mentioned that cheque issued for gift, valid up to Rs.1000/—Endorsement was alleged to be a forgery & according offences under IPC were alleged in complaint—Petition for quashing complaint—Cognizance of complaint—Person mentioned in array of accused would not assume status of accused—Magistrate is complaint to examine any person deemed fit—Person, proposed accused, mentioned in complaint if examined by Court would not be an illegality as Court had not yet taken cognizance against him. (Para 21)
(ii) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973—Section 204—Cognizance of offences in a private complaint—Recording statement of witnesses first and then recording statement of complaint was an irregularity & not illegality. (Para 22)
Result: Petition dismissed
Back
