Chandra Shekhar Prasad Singh vs. The State Of Jharkhand

Held

The High Court held that the learned Judicial Magistrate rightly rejected the petitioner's discharge petition. The Court reasoned that there is no provision in law that allows for a discharge petition to be entertained in a summary proceeding. The Court found no illegality in the impugned order. Furthermore, the Court noted that the Magistrate had correctly relied on the precedent set in the case of Adalat Prasad, which suggests that the extraordinary remedy available in such circumstances is under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It was an admitted fact that the petitioner had issued a cheque in favour of the department, which was dishonoured, leading to the filing of the complaint under Section 138 of the NI Act. Therefore, the petition was dismissed.

Facts

The petitioner, Chandra Shekhar Prasad Singh, filed a petition before the High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi seeking to quash an order dated 10.03.2022 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Bokaro. This order rejected the petitioner's petition for discharge in C.P. Case No. 400 of 2017, leaving the case pending before the Magistrate's court. The petitioner argued that the Magistrate's order was illegal as his appeal was pending before the Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax. The opposite party, Union of India (CGST), contended that the Magistrate correctly dismissed the discharge petition, noting there is no provision for discharge in summary proceedings and that the case arises under Section 138 of the NI Act.

Key Issues

1. Whether the learned Judicial Magistrate erred in rejecting the petitioner's discharge petition in a summary proceeding, thereby committing an illegality? (Question of law) Petitioner's contention: The learned Magistrate illegally rejected the discharge petition without appreciating the facts of the case. The pendency of the petitioner's appeal before the Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax renders the Magistrate's order bad in law. Revenue's (Opposite Party No. 2) contention: The learned Magistrate correctly dismissed the discharge petition because there is no provision for discharge in a summary proceeding. The case originates from a complaint filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, and the Magistrate's order is not illegal. The revenue relied on the case of Adalat Prasad.