AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Yogendra Kumar Sangal, J.—This is an application u/s 482 Code of Criminal Procedure moved on behalf of the accused of complaint Case No. 2800 of 2009, u/s 138, Negotiable Instruments Act, (hereinafter referred to as ''the Act'') P.S. Harbans mohal, district Kanpur Nagar pending in the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate, Court No. 10, Kanpur Nagar.
Heard learned Counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.
A complaint was lodged by the respondent No. 2 against the applicant for the offence u/s 138 of the Act. After evidence u/s 200 Code of Criminal Procedure accused was summoned to face the trial. Aggrieved by this order, the instant application has been filed.
Main ground of challenging the order of summoning the accused by the trial court pressed by the learned Counsel for the applicant is that date of service of statutory notice has not been mentioned in the complaint which is required to be served u/s 138 of the Act.
I have gone through the copy of the complaint available on the record. In the complaint in Paragraphs 8 & 9 it has specifically been mentioned that notice was served by registered post on correct address of the accused with Acknowledgment (AD) but neither the Envelope containing the notice has been received back nor the Acknowledgment has been received. Affidavit was also filed in support of these facts. On the averments in the complaint and the affidavit presumption of service of notice in due course on the accused-applicant arises. In these circumstances, it cannot be taken that sufficient details are not given in the complaint as required u/s 138 of the Act.
It is established law that in inherent jurisdiction of the High Court u/s 482 powers has to be exercised sparingly, carefully and with caution and only when it is justified by the test specifically laid down in the statute itself. Authority of the court exist for the advancement of justice. If any abuse of process leading to justice is brought to the notice of the court, then the court would be justified in preventing injustice by invoking the inherent jurisdiction/power in absence of specific provisions in the statute.
In the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find any ground of interference in summoning order of the accused and also no ground to quash the proceedings of the Complaint Case. Accordingly, the application is hereby dismissed.