This petition has been filed by the petitioner praying to call for the records in S.T.C.No.203 of 2015 on the file of the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Padmanabhapuram and quash the same.

2. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that a case in S.T.C.No.203 of 2015 has been taken on file for the offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, stating that the S.T.C.No.203 of 2015 has to be quashed for want of compliance of the provisions of Section 204 Criminal Procedure Code, as list of witnesses have not been furnished in the complaint. To substantiate his argument, he relied upon the judgment of the Honourable Calcutta High Court judgment in Subol Mondal and another vs. The State and another reported in 1974 CRL.L.J.176(V 80 C 57) and in another judgment of the Honourable Karnataka High Court judgment in A.K.Suresh vs. Rajendra Peter and another reported in 1998 CRL.L.J.2164 and yet another judgment of the Honourable Bombay High Court judgment in Bhiku Yeshwant Dhangat and others vs. Baban Maruti Barate and another reported in 2001 CRL.L.J.295 and prayed for quashing the same.

3. Resisting the same, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent submits that compliance of the said provisions is not mandatory, because on receipt of the complaint only, cognizance of the offence has been taken; and summons have been issued and therefore, the provisions of Section 204 Cr.P.C are not mandatory to give list of witnesses. Hence, he prays for dismissal of the petition.

4. Considering the rival submissions and on perusal of the typed set of papers, it is seen that the respondent has preferred a complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C for the offence under Sections 138 and 142 of Negotiable Instruments Act, stating that the petitioner herein has borrowed a sum of Rs.7,00,000/-on 28.11.2014 for his personal expenses and on demand for repayment, he issued a cheque dated 28.11.2014 which was presented for encashment on 09.12.2014 that has been returned as "Insufficient Funds" and after issuance of statutory notice and after receipt of the acknowledgement card and reply notice, he preferred a complaint which was taken on file in S.T.C.No.203 of 2015.

5. Admittedly, though list of documents have been mentioned, no list of witnesses have been filed. It is appropriate to incorporate Section 204 Cr.P.C reads as follows:

"204.Issue of Process:

(1) If in the opinion of a Magistrate taking cognizable of an offence there is sufficient ground for proceeding and the case appears to be-

(a) a summons-case, he shall issue his summons for the attendance of the accused, or

(b) a warrant-case, he may issue a warrant, or, if he thinks fit, a summons, for causing the accused to be brought or to appear at a certain time before such Magistrate or (if he has no jurisdiction himself) some other Magistrate having jurisdiction.

(2) No summons or warrant shall be issued against the accused under sub-section (1) until a list of the prosecution witnesses has been filed.

(3)In a proceeding instituted upon a complaint made in writing, every summons or warrant issued under sub-section (1) shall be accompanied by a copy of such complaint.

(4) When by any law for the time being in force any process-fees or other fees are payable, no process shall be issued until the fees are paid and if such fees are not paid within a reasonable time, the Magistrate may dismiss the complaint.

(5) Nothing in this section shall be deemed to affect the provisions of Section 87."

6. Section 204(2) Cr.P.C stipulates that no summons or warrant shall be issued against the accused under sub-section (1) until a list of the prosecution witnesses has been filed. But, admittedly, the list of prosecution witness has not been filed. The complainant/respondent preferred a complaint,based on which, after recording the statement, cognizable offence has been taken. It is appropriate to consider the decision relied upon by the petitioner in Subol Mondal and another vs. The St