IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT WEDNESDAY, THE 21ST MARCH 2007 / 30TH PHALGUNA 1928 Crl.MC.No. 821 of 2007() ------------------------ CMP.4811/2003 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, KASARAGOD .................... PETITIONER: ------------ A.C. ABBAS, S/O. ABDUL KHADER, CHAVARTHODI HOUSE, ADHUR P.O., ADHUR VILLAGE, KASARAGODE. BY ADV. SRI.T.G.RAJENDRAN RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. A.M. MOHAMMED SHAFI, S/O. A.M. KUNHI MAHIN KUTTY HAJI, PUTHIYAKANDAM, PALLAM, ADHUR P.O., ADHUR VILLAGE, KASARAGODE TALUK. 2. STATION HOUSE OFFICER, ADHUR, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY P.P. SRI. S.U. NAZAR. THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21/03/2007, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Crl.M.C.No. 821 of 2007 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 21st day of March, 2007 O R D E R The petitioner is aggrieved by the dismissal of his private complaint by the learned Magistrate invoking the powers under Section 203 Cr.P.C. His challenge in revision was also turned down by the learned Sessions Judge. 2. The petitioner faces indictment in a prosecution under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. It is his defence in the said case that the cheque was stealthily snatched by the complainant in that case. After the said cheque was presented and dishonoured and the complainant in that case started steps to prosecute the petitioner, the petitioner raised a complaint before the learned Magistrate that the cheque was forcibly taken out of his possession. That complaint was referred to the police under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. The police, after investigation, referred the said case. It is aggrieved by that conduct of the police that the petitioner filed the protest complaint. The learned Magistrate examined the complainant and his witnesses. The learned Magistrate appears to have very carefully scrutinised the Crl.M.C.No. 821 of 2007 2 allegations. The learned Magistrate came to the conclusion that there is no sufficient ground to proceed against the accused person i.e. the second respondent herein. A detailed order was passed under Section 203 Cr.P.C. giving the reasons for such conclusion. In revision, the learned Sessions Judge upheld the conclusion of the learned Magistrate. 3. The petitioner has come to this court with this petition praying that the inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. may be invoked. What is the reason? The learned counsel for the petitioner only submits that the learned Magistrate had adverted to the facts in greater detail and more exhaustively than was strictly necessary for a Magistrate at the stage of Section 203/204 Cr.P.C. 4. It has often been repeated that at the stage of Section 203/204 Cr.P.C. the Magistrates shall not exercise the jurisdiction mechanically. They have the twin objectives to be performed at that stage. A vexatious complainant with no bonafides must be shown the door at the threshold itself. A bonafide complainant having a serious grievance must be given a fuller opportunity to substantiate his grievance. Under Section 203/204 Cr.P.C. the Magistrate must consider and need only consider whether there is sufficient ground to proceed against the accused. A Magistrate is not Crl.M.C.No. 821 of 2007 3 expected to swallow all what a complainant and his witnesses may speak on oath. An alert exercise of jurisdiction is expected with the twin objectives referred above in mind. 5. Having gone through the impugned orders passed by the learned Magistrate and the learned Sessions Judge, I am of the opinion that the learned Magistrate not only has not erred in exercise of his jurisdiction, but deserves to be complemented for such alert exercise. I am happy to note that one Magistrate has exercised jurisdiction at that stage very alertly and conscious of the nature of the jurisdiction. In any view of the matter, I am satisfied that powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. do not deserve to be invoked as the order caters eminently to the interests of justice and there is no failure/miscarriage of justice. 6. This Crl.M.C. is accordingly dismissed. (R. BASANT) Judge tm