1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR ORDER S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No.2437/2009 (Amarveer Singh Versus Narendra Singh) Date of Order :: 13th May, 2010 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHESH BHAGWATI Mr. J.P. Gupta, counsel for the petitioner. Mr. Keshav Agarwal, counsel for the respondent BY THE COURT: Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Having considered the submissions made at the bar and carefully perused the orders dated 15th March, 2007 and 12th October, 2009, it is noticed that the learned Judicial Magistrate No. 6, Jaipur City, Jaipur, having perused the contents of complaint and affidavit, cheque, Return memo, registered notice, postal receipt, envelop etc. filed in support thereof, took the cognizance of an offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act and ordered to proceed against the accused petitioner Amarveer Singh as there was ample evidence against him on record. 3. Section 200 of CrPC envisages as 2 under:- “200. Examination of complainant.-A Magistrate taking cognizance of an offence on complaint shall examine upon oath the complainant and the witnesses present, if any, and the substance of such examination shall be reduced to writing and shall be signed by the complainant and the witnesses, and also by the Magistrate.” 4. A bare reading of phraseology of Section 200 of CrPC suggests that a Magistrate taking cognizance of an offence on complaint shall examine upon oath the complainant and the witnesses present, if any, in the Court. In the most unequivocal terms, the Section reflects that the Magistrate having jurisdiction after having perused the contents of the complaint, shall take cognizance of the offence and thereafter if he finds substance in the complaint, shall examine the complainant and the witnesses on oath. In the instant case, the learned Judicial Magistrate, not only applied the judicial mind to the contents of the complaint, but also carefully perused the affidavit and other documents filed in support thereof also. The order of taking cognizance 3 rendered by Judicial Magistrate No. 6, Jaipur City, Jaipur is found to be perfectly just and proper. It does not suffer from any infirmity. 5. So far as the order dated 12th October, 2009 is concerned, it is with regard to recalling the order dated 15th March, 2007. The learned Judicial Magistrate rightly dismissed the application in view of the decision given by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Adalat Prasad Versus Roop Lal Jindal & Others reported in (2004) 7 Supreme Court Cases 338. The learned trial court rightly dismissed the application, wherein the petitioner implored to recall the said order of taking cognizance of offence. 6. Albeit, the learned counsel for the petitioner has cited two judgments of this Court, but they are not applicable in the instant case. 7. The petition is found to be totally devoid of any substance and the same deserves to be dismissed at the thresh-hold. 4 8. For the reasons stated above, the criminal misc. petition filed under Section 482 of CrPC, being bereft of any substance, stands dismissed. (MAHESH BHAGWATI),J. DK/-