THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.CHANDRA KUMAR CRIMINAL PETITION No.2203 of 2010 Dated:- 22nd December, 2011 Between Yerramsetti Srinivasa Rao …Petitioner AND The State of A.P. and another …Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.CHANDRA KUMAR CRIMINAL PETITION No.2203 of 2010 ORDER:- This Criminal Petition has been filed seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.268 of 2008 on the file of the Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Narsapur, West Godavari District. 2. No representation for the petitioner. As seen from the grounds of this petition, the main ground urged by the petitioner is that the learned Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Narsapur, West Godavari District, without examining the complainant and basing on the affidavit filed by him, has taken cognizance of the offence and issued process. As seen from the record, the second respondent filed a complaint under Section 138 read with Section 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 on 10.12.2008. Along with the said complaint, sworn affidavit of the complainant was filed. Then the mater was posted to 22.12.2008. On 22.12.2008, the learned Magistrate passed an order which reads as follows:- “The case is taken on file against the accused U/s 138 of N.I. Act. Issue notice to accused T.C. & R.P. on payment of process. Call on 28.01.2009.” 3. Then, notice was issued to the accused through Court and by Registered post on payment of process. Then the petitioner herein/accused appeared before the Court and he was examined under Section 251 Cr.P.C., wherein he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried and thus, matter was posted to 16.07.2009 for trial. On 16.07.2009, the second respondent/de facto complainant was present, but the petitioner herein/accused was absent and hence, Non- Bailable Warrant was issued against the petitioner herein/accused. In the above circumstances, the petitioner herein/accused filed this petition to quash the proceedings. 4. The Apex Court, in the case between T.J.Stephen Vs. M/s.Parle Bottling Co. (P) Ltd.[1], had categorically observed that a Magistrate need not examine the complainant before issue of process. In view of the same, the proceedings cannot be quashed against the petitioner. 5. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. ________________________ Justice B.Chandra Kumar 22nd December, 2011 Bvv [1] AIR 1988 SC 994