Code v. Act

Heard learned Counsel Petitioners. The second Respondent a complaint section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 against Petitioners. The complaint pending before learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Mumbai. According Petitioners a complaint lodged certain investors against Petitioners police. On complaint, charge before learned designated Court Maharashtra Protection Interest Depositors (In Financial Establishments) Act,1999 (hereinafter referred the M.P.I.D. Act). An application Petitioners section 210 Code Criminal Procedure, 1973 before learned Magistrate contending complaint second Respondent deserves the M.P.I.D. Act. The application rejected learned Magistrate

the order passed by the learned Magistrate has been confirmed in a Revision by the Sessions Court. - 2 -

Relying decision of Madhya Pradesh High Court Ajit Khan Vs. Sirajuddin others reported 1987 Cri.L.J. 1304, section 2 section 210 Code, learned Counsel Petitioners submitted complaint second Respondent transferred designated trying the cases under M.P.I.D. Act. He submitted that the subject matter of both the cases is same.

I considered submissions. On reading section 210 Code, obvious section 2 section 210 application present case. This a complaint second Respondent M.P.I.D. Act pending before the learned Magistrate. The case under M.P.I.D.Act is pending before the designated court .

In circumstances, courts holding section 210 Code cannot invoked this case. I find no infirmity in the said view taken by the courts below. Petition is rejected. JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE