1. This Criminal Revision is directed against the order dated 4th July, 2012, passed by the learned Sub Judge, (Judge, Small Causes Court), Srinagar, in a complaint titled Mst. Rifat Farooq v. Sheikh Mohammad Amin, on the grounds taken in the memo of Revision petition.

2. A complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short ‘Act’) was presented before the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Srinagar, which was assigned and transferred to earned City Judge, Srinagar, on 20.11.2008, and, subsequently, transferred to the Court of Judge, Small Causes, Srinagar, in terms of the order passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Srinagar, on 20.10.2009.

3. The record reveals that the learned Magistrate, after recording statements of the complainant and a witness produced by him, took cognizance of the complaint and issued process against the accused for the commission of offence under Section 138 of the Act. During the pendency of the complaint, the accused appeared on 29.11.2008, and laid an application for revocation of order dated 22.11.2008, which was considered and dismissed on merits by the court vide order dated 05.05.2009. The petitioner, accused, invoked the jurisdiction of this Court in terms of 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short Cr. P. C.), bearing 561-A petition No. 44/2009, seeking quashment of the entire proceedings together with order dated 05.05.2009. The said petition was dismissed by this Court vide judgment and order dated 29.06.2009. It would be beneficial to quote the relief sought for by the petitioner in the aforesaid 561-A Cr. P. C. petition No. 44/2009, which reads as under:

“In the premises, it is, therefore, prayed that this application of the petitioners under Section 561 be accepted and the cognizance taken vide order dated 22.11.2008 on the complaint filed by respondent No. 1 under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act in complaint titled Mst. Rifat Farooq Versus Mr. Sheikh Mohammad Amin and others be quashed and also the complaint including the proceedings so initiated and taken in pursuance of the order of cognizance dated 22.11.2008.”

4. A Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, while dismissing the said petition, recorded in the order that no other ground was urged. It would be apt to reproduce paragraph 2 and the penultimate paragraph of the judgment hereunder:

“Heard learned counsel for petitioner. Considered the matter. Learned counsel for petitioners submit that complaint filed by respondent through attorney is not maintainable, hence this petition seeking quashment of the proceedings… ….

No other ground was urged….”

5. Consequent upon dismissal of the 561-A Cr. P. C. petition by this Court, the trial court proceeded ahead and recorded the statement of the accused under Section 242 Cr.P.C. and of the witnesses produced by the complainant.

6. The record reveals that the accused again filed an application on 14.11.2011 before the trial court under Section 253(2) of Cr.P.C. for his discharge on the grounds taken therein. The said application came to be dismissed by the trial court vide order dated 04.07.2012.

7. Mr. Qureshi vehemently argued that the trial court has not recorded the preliminary statements of the complainant and his witness on oath, as mandated by the provision of Section 200 Cr. P.C. Thus, according to him, taking cognizance and issuance of process thereon is bad in law and that is why the accused was constrained to move an application for discharge under Section 253(2) of Cr. P.C. In support of his argument, he has laid reliance on the judgment of this Court reported in SLJ (2) 2006 page 571.

8. Mr. Lateef, learned counsel, appearing for the respondent, in rebuttal, argued that the petitioner has himself used the process of the Court by invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 561-A Cr. P.C. and, thereafter, by laying two applications before the trial court, the mention of which has been already made in the preceding paragraphs, which

Click Here to Read the rest of this document