- (1.) The petitioners have sought quashing of the complaint (Annexure P/1) under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (herein referred as, 'the Act') and the summoning order dated 27.4.2009 (Annexure P/2) and all the subsequent proceedings arising out of the said complaint.
(2.) The sole question to be determined in this case is, "whether non compliance of Section 204 (2) of Cr. P. C. renders the summoning order as invalid and deserves quashing -
(3.) In this regard, before proceeding to decide the question into controversy, we need to reproduce Section 204 of Cr. P. C. which reads as under:- 204. Issue of process:- (1) If in the opinion of a Magistrate taking cognizance of an o ence there is sufficient ground for proceeding, and the case appears to be:- (a) a summons-case, he shall issue his summons for the attendance of the accused, or (b) a warrant-case, he may issue a warrant, or, if he thinks fit, a summons, for causing the accused to be brought or to appear at a certain time before such Magistrate or (if he has no jurisdiction himself) some other Magistrate having jurisdiction. (2) No summons or warrant shall be issued against the accused under sub-section (1) until a list of the prosecution witnesses has been filed. (3) In a proceeding instituted upon a complaint made in writing every summons or warrant issued under sub-section (1) shall be accompanied by a copy of such complaint. (4) When by any law for the time being in force any process-fees or other fees are payable, no process shall be issued until the fees are paid and, if such fees are not paid within a reasonable time, the Magistrate may dismiss the complaint. (5) Nothing in this section shall be deemed to affect the provisions of section 87. ;