Advocates:
['M/S A V ARUN', '', 'R VINOTH KUMAR', 'R SIDHARTH', 'M/S K V SRIDHARAN', '', 'JAYASRI BASKAR']

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 24.10.2016

CORAM:

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.T. SELVAM

Crl.R.C.No.1057 of 2016

and

Crl.M.P.Nos.8986 and 8987 of 2016

R.Pari

S/o.M.Rajalilngam

.. Petitioner

vs.

Sreeprakash

.. Respondent

Criminal Revision filed under section 397 and 401 Cr.P.C. to set aside

the order dated 18.03.2006 passed in C.M.P.Nos.6372 of 2015 in STC

Nos.577 of 2009 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.III, Salem by

allowing criminal revisions.

For Petitioner

:

Mr.A.V.Arun

For Respondent

:

Mr.K.V.Sridharan

*****

http://www.judis.nic.in

2

O R D E R

The revision petition challenges the order of dismissal dated

18.03.2016 passed in in C.M.P.No.6372 of 2015 in STC No.577 of 2009 by

learned Judicial Magistrate No.III, Salem.

2.Petitioner faces trial in STC No.577 of 2009 on the file of learned

Judicial Magistrate No.III, Salem for offence under Section 138 of the

Negotiable Instrument Act. The petitioner moved a petition in

C.M.P.No.6372 of 2015 seeking discharge. Court below under order dated

18.03.2016 dismissed such petition. Hence, this revision.

3.Heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned counsel for

respondent.

4.Learned counsel for petitioner submits that petitioner/accused

seeks discharge in case alleging commission of offence under Section 138

of the Negotiable Instrument Act, wherein summary procedure is to be

adopted.

http://www.judis.nic.in

3

5.Learned counsel for petitioner relied on the decision in Bhushan

Kumar and Another v. State of (NCT of Delhi) and another (2012 [5]

SCC 424) (cited supra), wherein, paragraph 20 reads as follows:

"It is inherent in Section 251 of the

Code that when an accused appears before

the trial court pursuant to summons issued

under Section 204 of the Code in a summons

trial case, it is the bounden duty of the

trial court to carefully go through the

allegations made in the charge-sheet or

complaint and consider the evidence to

come to a conclusion whether or not,

commission of any offence is disclosed and

if the answer is in the affirmative, the

Magistrate shall explain the substance of

the accusation to the accused and ask him

whether he pleads guilty otherwise, he is

bound to discharge the accused as per

Section 239 of the Code."

http://www.judis.nic.in

4

6.The Supreme Court in Adalat Prasad v. Rooplal Jindal and

Others (2004 [4] SCC (Cri) 1927) held that no petition for discharge

would lie in a summons case.

7.This Court is unable to follow the decision in Bhushan Kumar and

Another v. State of (NCT of Delhi) and another (2012 [5] SCC 424)

(cited supra). This Court follows the decisions of Larger Bench of

Supreme Court in Adalat Prasad v. Rooplal Jindal and Others (2004 [4]

SCC (Cri) 1927) as also that in Subramanium Sethuraman v. State of

Maharashtra and Another (2005 SCC (Cri) 242).

8.Accordingly, this revision stands dismissed. Consequently,

connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. Learned Judicial

Magistrate is directed to dispose of S.T.C.No.577 of 2009 within a period

of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

24.10.2016

Index: Yes/No

Internet: Yes

cla

http://www.judis.nic.in

5

To

1.The Judicial Magistrate No.III,

Salem.

2.The Public Prosecutor,

High Court, Madras.

http://www.judis.nic.in

6

C.T. SELVAM, J

cla

Crl.R.C.No.1057 of 2016

24.10.2016

http://www.judis.nic.in