1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 775 OF 2009 Jitendra Sharma ..Petitioner. versus The State of Maharashtra & Anr. ..Respondents ===== Mr.S.V.Marwadi i/by S.P.Narkar for petitioner. Mrs.U.V.Kejriwal  APP for State. Ms.Rajani i/by M/s.V.Deshpande & Co. for respondent no.2. ===== CORAM : V.R.KINGAONKAR, J. DATED : 25 th SEPTEMBER, 2009. P.C. : 1.By this petition, the petitioner challenges issuance of process and proceedings in complaint case No.2907 of 2004. The learned Additional Metropolitan Magistrate has issued process against the applicants and other accused persons. 2.The applicant alleges that he had resigned from the partnership firm and was no more concerned with M/s.Gur Kripa Tractors (Original Accused No.1). He alleges that he 2 had made this fact situation clear vide the reply notice. His further contention is that process could not have been issued on the basis of verified statement which is only in a format. He would submit that the learned Additional Metropolitan Magistrate failed to consider that there is no proper averment in the complaint so as to make him liable to answer the charge for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act. 3.Heard learned counsel for the parties. 4.The contention of Mr.S.V.Marwadi, learned counsel for the petitioner is that verification of the complaint under Section 200 of the Criminal Procedure Code is quite defective. He would submit that the applicant cannot be roped in when he clearly asserted that he was not concerned with the partnership business of the accused no.1. He further would submit that the impugned order of process is improper and illegal due to non application of judicial mind. As against 3 this, the learned counsel for the respondent no.2 submitted that the application suffers from inordinate delay and as such is liable to be dismissed. 5.On perusal of the verified statement recorded by the leaned Additional Metropolitan Magistrate it transpires that the statement, in fact, only gives information in a format. It contains particulars of the cheque, date of dishonour of the cheque, date of issuance of the notice and date of filing of the complaint etc. The very purpose of recording statement under Section 200 of the Criminal Procedure Code is to obtain particulars from the complainant so as to reach prima facie conclusion whether the ingredients of the offence are made out or otherwise. The verification of the complaint, in the present case, is found to be defective. This Court in Amarnath Baijnath Gupta & Anr. Vs. M/s.Mohini Organics Pvt.Ltd. & Anr., 2009 All.M.R.(Cri.) 184 held that if a 4 verification statement is mechanically recorded in a format, it is obvious that complainant will be deprived of an opportunity to disclose the material particulars of factual aspects on oath. In such a case, Court is required to verify whether material particulars are furnished by the complainant. The recording of verified statement is not an empty formality, it is the duty of the Court to record statement of the complainant in an appropriate manner. Merely, obtaining information to fill up some formant like statement is improper. 6.It is not necessary to consider the other submissions of the counsel when it is found that the verified statement is quite defective. It may be stated that the complaint proceedings cannot quashed only because of said technical defect. The order of issuance of process, however, may be quashed in as much as it is based on improper and incorrect verified statement. The taking 5 of cognizance would depend upon the information received by the learned Magistrate and the procedural aspect is only a supportive formality. 7.Considering the foregoing reasons, the application is partly allowed. The order dated 5th October 2004 regarding issuance of process against the applicant is quashed. However, the complaint proceedings are not quashed and learned Additional Metropolitan Magistrate is directed to record the appropriate statement of the complainant in accordance with law. 8.Petition is accordingly disposed of. (V.R.KINGAONKAR, J.)