The main legal point established is that issues regarding the examination of the complainant, admissibility of documents, and the capacity of the complainant to lend money should be addressed during trial and not for discharge under Section 258 CrPC.

ORDER :

1. Heard Mr. Y.M. Lokendro, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. None appears for the respondent.

2. The civil revision petition has been filed challenging the order dated 28.05.2018 passed by the Session Judge, Imphal West dismissing Criminal Revision Case No. 17 of 2017.

3. Notice was ordered and the case was admitted on 26.07.2018. Registry report dated 25.08.2018 states that step has been taken on the sole respondent. Further Registry report dated 07.09.2018 states that notice returned unserved from the Post Office stating the reason as "name and address not found".

4. Be that as it may, considering the nature of the case, Mr. Y.M. Lokendro, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner proceeded to argue the matter. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to adjourn the matter for non appearance for the respondent.

5. The respondent filed a complaint case being Cril (C) Case No. 381 of 2016 against the present petitioner under section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act before the Chief Judicial Magistrate stating that the petitioner issued a cheque which was submitted to the Bank and it was intimated by the Bank that the cheque has been dishonoured. In that complaint case, trial has commenced. At this stage, it is pertinent to point out that along with the complaint, the respondent complainant has filed an affidavit in support of the complaint.

6. At the stage of examination of the accused under Section 313 CrPC, an application, being Cril Misc. Case No. 129 of 2017 has been filed by the petitioner invoking Section 258 CrpC before the Chief Judicial Magistrate Imphal West, to stop further proceeding in Criminal Case No. 381 of 2016. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Imphal West, after hearing the counsel for either side, dismissed the application vide order dated 04.11.2017 against which Criminal Revision Case No. 17 of 2017 was filed before the Court of Sessions Judge, Imphal West Manipur, which again was dismissed on 28.05.2018. Hence the present civil revision petition has been filed before this Court.

7. Before the Chief Judicial Magistrate and also before the Court of Sessions Judge, Imphal West, the petitioner accused pleaded as follows :

(1)The complainant has been not examined as witness. Therefore, there is a violation of Section 200, CrPC.

(2) The documents marked A to F are Photostat copies. Therefore, it is not admissible as per Section 61 of the Indian Evidence Act.

(3) The complainant did not have the capacity to lend a sum of Rs.9,75,500/- to the petitioner.

Therefore, for all the above stated reasons, the trial should be stopped and the accused be discharged by invoking section 258 CrPC. The same plea is raised before this Court also. Section 258 CrPC reads as follows :-

"Section 258. Power to stop proceedings in certain cases.-

In any summons-case instituted otherwise than upon complaint, a Magistrate of the first class or, with the previous sanction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, any other Judicial Magistrate, may, for reasons to be recorded by him, stop the proceedings at any stage without pronouncing any judgment and where such stoppage of proceedings is made after the evidence of the principal witnesses has been recorded, pronounce a judgment of acquittal, and in any other case, release the accused, and such release shall have the effect of discharge."

8. On the applicable plea of Section 258 CrPC, the learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of M/S Meters and Instruments Private Limited vs. Kanchan Mehta, Criminal Appeal No. 1731 of 2017 decided on 05.10.2017. In that case, the Court, in Para 11, held as follows:-

"11. While it is true that in Subramanium Sethuraman Vs. State of Maharashtra, this Court observed that once the plea of the accused is recorded under Section 252 of the Cr.P.C., the procedure contemplated under Chapter XX of the Cr.P.C. has to be followed to take the trial to its logical conclusion, the said judgment was rendered