AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
M.C. Jain, J.—I have heard the learned Counsel for the revisionist and the learned Counsel for the Opposite Party No. 1 in this revision which has been filed against the order dated 31.5.1990 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Muzaffarnagar in criminal Case No. 1606/9/1990 whereby he has been summoned for offence u/s 420 of I.P.C. and Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The contention of the learned Counsel for the revisionist is that his summoning is unwarranted and unjustified keeping in view of the Sections 138 and 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, and there is no ingredient of Section 420 of I.P.C. on the other hand, it has been contended by the learned Counsel for the O.P. No. 1 that the revisionist has straightway filed this revision without agitating his grievance before the lower court.
Keeping in view the law laid down in the case of Kailash Chaudhary v. State of U.P. AIR 1994 SC 174, it is obvious that the revisionist has an effective and alternative remedy to approach the Magistrate concerned for recall of the order issuing process against him. I think that it would be proper to direct the revisionist to first agitate his grievance by means of an application before the lower Court. It is accordingly ordered that in case the revisionist appears before the Magistrate concerned in response to the process and challenges the order issuing process within one month from the date of this order on the ground that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the process ought not to have been issued, then the Magistrate would reexamine the matter in accordance with law and in the light of the contentions of the revisionist and shall pass a reasoned order. Until he passes a reasoned order stating that there are sufficient grounds for proceeding against the revisionist, the operation of the order issuing the process shall remain in abeyance.
The revision is disposed of accordingly.