The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of following the prescribed procedure under the Code of Criminal Procedure for dealing with private complaints, including conducting an inquiry, recording the sworn statement of the complainant, and considering the materials on record before taking further action.

This revision arose, at the instance of de facto complainant as against the dismissal of her complaint by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.III, Coimbatore in Crl.M.P.No.2005 of 2011.

2. The respondent filed two cheque bouncing cases in C.C.Nos.372 and 373 of 2010 before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.III, Coimbatore as against the revision petitioner. Crl.O.P.Nos.11151 and 11152 of 2011 have been filed by the revision petitioner under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash these criminal proceedings. This Court had stayed all further proceedings in the said cases.

3. The revision petitioner filed a complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C., before the same Judicial Magistrate No.III, Coimbatore alleging that actually the money transaction was between her husband and the respondent, she has nothing to do with that. However, she has to give security cheques and also some blank cheques to the respondent. They were misused by the respondent and he has demanded exorbitant and meter interest. The revision petitioner sought for taking her complaint on file and punish the respondent according to law.

4. On 24.3.2011, the learned Magistrate passed the following order (in vernacular language):-

----in other language-------------

5. The sum and substance of the said order is that a pending case cannot give a cause of action to file another case and in any event in one case the Court cannot go into the details of another pending case before the Court and thus, there is no prima facie case and thus rejected the complaint.

6. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner/ complainant would contend that the approach of the learned Magistrate in dealing with her complaint is not in accordance with law. There was no proper and acceptable material for the learned Magistrate to pass the impugned order. The learned Magistrate without any basis refused to take cognizance. The learned Magistrate has simply carried away, misled by the pendency of cheque bouncing cases filed against her by the respondent. The impugned order is against fundamental judicial procedure and against the scheme provided under the Code of Criminal Procedure to deal with the private complaints under Section 200 Cr.P.C.

7. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner also cited Mehmood Ul Rehman vs. Khazir Mohammad Tunda and Others {(2015) 12 SCC 420}, S.R.Sukumar vs. S.Sunaad Raghuram {2015 (3) MWN (Crl.) 269 (SC) and Sathavu Pandian vs. Kalyani and Another {2016 SCC Online Mad 8862 (Madurai Bench)}.

8. The learned counsel for the respondent would submit that although the learned Magistrate has not taken cognizance as against the respondent and as on date in the private complaint, the respondent has not become an accused, the respondent is entitled to have opportunity to put-forth his case because if the revision succeeded or an adverse order is passed, he will be prejudiced. Although, hearing is not provided to the proposed accused at the pre-cognizance stage in a Magistrate's Court, in view of Section 401 Cr.P.C., in the Revisional Court, the respondent is entitled to have a hearing. In this connection, he has also cited the Constitution Bench decision in Manharibhai Muljibhai Kakadia and Another vs. Shaileshbhai Mohanbhai Patel and Others {2013 Crl.L.J. 144 (1)}.

9. The learned counsel for the respondent would contend that the learned Magistrate perused the allegations in the complaint filed by the revision petitioner, it is a counter-blast to her cheque bouncing case, the revision petitioner had engineered a baseless private complaint.

10. The learned counsel for the respondent also contended that the Trial Court having noticed that there is no prima facie case in her favour, rejected her complaint.

11. I have anxiously considered the rival submissions, perused the impugned order, the materials on record and the decisions cited.

12. Complaints to Magistrates are being dealt with under Sections 200 to 204 Cr.P.C. A complaint must be in writing. It must contain allegations constituti