Jharkhand High Court
Classic Automobiles And Anr. vs State Of Jharkhand And Anr. on 20 September, 2004
Equivalent citations: [2004(4)JCR335(JHR)]
Author: Amareshwar Sahay
Bench: Amareshwar Sahay
ORDER Amareshwar Sahay, J.
1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.
2. The petitioner has challenged the order taking cognizance dated 1.9.2003 in P.C.R. No. 347/2003 whereby the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of the offence under Section 420, IPC and 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act.
3. From the impugned order it appears that the learned Magistrate on the basis of the allegation made in the complaint petition statement of the complainant of solemn affirmation as well as the statement of the witnesses examined during enquiry under Section 202, Cr PC has found prima facie case against the petitioner and hereby has taken cognizance under the aforesaid sections.
4. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has brought to the notice of the Court by filing several annexure with this application and submitted that no case for the offence alleged is made out against the petitioner and, therefore, the order taking cognizance is bad in law.
5. In my view the facts which has been brought by the learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be seen at this stage as the same can at least be considered as the defence of the petitioner.
6. From the materials on record and the allegation made in the complaint petition, statement of the complainant on solemn affirmation and the evidences adduced by the complaint during enquiry under Section 202, Cr PC it appears that the learned Magistrate has rightly taken cognizance after finding prima facie case is made out against the petitioner.
7. In my view the order passed by the learned Magistrate cannot be challenged on the basis of facts, which was not before the learned Magistrate while taking cognizance of the offence alleged.
8. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I see no reason to interfere with the impugned order. Accordingly this application is dismissed.