Ashok Bhan, A.R.Lakshmanan - (1.) -Leave granted.
(2.) HEARD the counsel for the appellants as well as the respondent Bank, who appears on caveat. These appeals are directed against the judgment and order passed by the single Judge of the High Court of Judicature at Calcutta wherein the High Court has set aside the order of the Metropolitan Magistrate, VIIIth Court, Calcutta, dismissing the complaint filed under Sections 406, 420 and 120B, I.P.C. by the respondent-Bank. The Metropolitan Magistrate vide his order dated 2.9.2003 dismissed the complaint in a perfunctory manner without recording any reasons for the same.
(3.) THE High Court, after recording the finding that the order of the Magistrate is cryptic and non-speaking, proceeded to determine as to whether a case under Sections 406, 420 and 120B, I.P.C. was made out against the appellants or not. After recording a finding that a case under the aforementioned provisions is made out, the High Court directed the Magistrate to take cognizance of the offences, issue process and proceed with the trial. Without going into the merits of the case, we are inclined to agree with the counsel for the appellants that the order passed by the High Court is unsustainable. If the High Court was of the opinion that the order passed by the Magistrate dismissing the complaint was cryptic or without reasons, the High Court should have remitted back the case to the Magistrate for re-decision with a direction to apply his mind and decide the matter in accordance with law. Counsel for the respondents, who is on caveat, has no objection to this recourse being adopted.;