TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>High Court quashes Magistrate's order, directs limited inquiry for non-compliance.</h1> <h3>Netcore Solutions Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. Versus M/s. Pinnacle Teleservices Pvt. Ltd. and Ors.</h3> The High Court quashed the Magistrate's order for non-compliance with the High Court's directive to conduct a limited inquiry under Section 202 of the ... - Issues involved: The main grievance of the petitioners is the issuance of process without following the High Court's order in a writ petition. The challenge is against the order of the learned trial Magistrate for the offence u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.Judgment Details:Issue 1: Compliance with High Court's OrderThe High Court had directed the learned trial Magistrate to hold an inquiry u/s 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Magistrate, after the High Court's order, recorded the complainant's statement and issued a fresh process against the petitioners for the offence u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The petitioner contended that the Magistrate did not comply with the High Court's order.Issue 2: Scope of Inquiry in Section 138 CasesThe respondent argued that in cases u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, there is limited scope for inquiry as the case is mainly based on documents. The Magistrate, in compliance with the High Court's order, recorded the complainant's statement and issued a fresh process.Issue 3: Duty of the Trial MagistrateThe High Court emphasized that while the trial Magistrate has limited scope for detailed inquiry in Section 138 cases, they should not ignore the High Court's order. The Magistrate should have examined the allegations in the complaint to determine if further inquiry was necessary before issuing the process.Precedent and DirectionThe High Court referred to previous judgments regarding the nature of inquiries u/s 202(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Even though such inquiries are considered directory, the trial Magistrate was obligated to follow the High Court's directions. The High Court set aside the Magistrate's order and directed a limited inquiry to decide on issuing the process.ConclusionThe High Court quashed the order of the learned Magistrate and directed a brief inquiry to determine if a process should be issued. The Magistrate was instructed to decide on issuing the process against all the petitioners after the inquiry. The petition was disposed of accordingly, and the complainant was to appear before the trial Magistrate on a specified date.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
