9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2025 (3) TMI 183 - HC - Indian LawsChallenge to impugned order rejecting the petition filed u/s 210 Cr.PC. - proceedings under Section 138 of the N.I. Act should be stayed or quashed - HELD THAT - From the record it is seen that a petition for quashing was also filed by the petitioners praying for quashing of the CID (Assam) P.S. Case No. 03/2017 and accordingly the further proceeding was also stayed by this Court vide order dated 14.11.2018 and which was registered as Criminal Petition No. 828/2017 was subsequently allowed by quashing the CID Case No. 03/2017. During pendency of the CID case the complaint case u/s 138 of the N.I. Act was filed alleging the dishonour of cheque amounting to Rs. 81 lacs. But from the perusal of the records and the annexures filed along with the petition it is seen that the subject matter of both the cases cannot be considered as same or similar one to pass any order to stay the proceedings by calling any police report in connection with CID P.S. Case No. 03/2017. In CID P.S. Case No. 03/2017 the allegation of misappropriation of money was amounting to Rs. 1, 36, 97, 352/- whereas the Criminal Case No. 3204/2017 is only in connection with the dishonour of cheque amounting to Rs. 81 lacs which is alleged to have been issued by the present petitioners. From the entire facts and circumstances of the case it is seen that the subject matter of both the proceedings cannot be considered as same or similar to stay the proceedings of the criminal complaint case. More so it is also seen that the CID (Assam) Case No. 03/2017 has already been quashed by this Court and hence the question of stay of the present proceeding also does not arise at this stage. Further the alternative prayer of the petitioners to convert the prayer of the present case for setting aside and quashing of the entire criminal proceeding also cannot be entertained at present for quashing of the entire case by invoking power u/s 482 Cr.PC. Conclusion - The learned Trial Court below committed no irregularity or mistake by passing the order dated 12.10.2018 by rejecting the prayer of the petitioners filed u/s 210 Cr.PC and hence there is no reason for setting aside and quashing the said order by invoking the power u/s 482 Cr.PC and hence this Court is of the opinion that there is no need of any interference in the order passed by the learned JMFC dated 12.10.2018 in C.R. Case No. 3204 of 2017. Petition dismissed.
ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED
The core legal issues considered in this judgment are: 1. Whether the order dated 12.10.2018 by the learned JMFC, Kamrup, rejecting the petition filed under Section 210 Cr.PC, was justified. 2. Whether the proceedings in Complaint Case No. 4683C/2017 under Section 138 of the N.I. Act should be stayed or quashed in light of the CID (Assam) P.S. Case No. 03/2017. 3. Whether the petitioners can seek conversion of their petition to one for quashing the entire criminal proceeding by invoking Section 482 Cr.PC. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS 1. Justification of the Order dated 12.10.2018 by the JMFC, Kamrup - Relevant legal framework and precedents: The petition under Section 210 Cr.PC was filed to call for a police report from the CID regarding the status of CID (Assam) P.S. Case No. 03/2017 and to stay the proceedings of the criminal complaint. Section 210 Cr.PC deals with the procedure to be followed when there is a complaint case and a police investigation in respect of the same offense. - Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Court noted that the nature, cause of action, procedures, and objectives of the two cases were different. The learned Trial Court concluded that the offenses under Section 138 of the N.I. Act and Sections 406/408/420 IPC were not the same, and thus, Section 210 Cr.PC did not apply. - Key evidence and findings: The Court found that the CID case involved allegations of misappropriation of Rs. 1,36,97,352/-, while the complaint case involved the dishonor of a cheque amounting to Rs. 81 lacs. - Application of law to facts: The Court applied the principles of Section 210 Cr.PC and found no overlap in the offenses or the nature of the cases to warrant a stay or report from the CID. - Treatment of competing arguments: The petitioners argued that the cases were interconnected, but the Court found no merit in this argument, as the CID case had already been quashed. - Conclusions: The rejection of the petition under Section 210 Cr.PC was upheld as the Court found no irregularity or mistake in the Trial Court's order. 2. Stay or Quashing of Proceedings in Complaint Case No. 4683C/2017 - Relevant legal framework and precedents: Section 138 of the N.I. Act deals with the dishonor of cheques, and Section 482 Cr.PC provides inherent powers to the High Court to prevent abuse of the process of any court or to secure the ends of justice. - Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Court noted that the CID case had been quashed, and there was no basis for staying or quashing the complaint case under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. - Key evidence and findings: The Court observed that the alleged coercion in obtaining signatures on cheques was a matter to be decided during the trial of the complaint case. - Application of law to facts: The Court found no grounds to interfere with the proceedings under Section 138 of the N.I. Act, as the CID case's quashing rendered the petitioners' arguments moot. - Treatment of competing arguments: The petitioners' request for conversion of their petition to one for quashing the entire proceeding was rejected as it was not the subject of the original petition. - Conclusions: The proceedings in Complaint Case No. 4683C/2017 were not stayed or quashed, as there was no legal basis for such an action. 3. Conversion of Petition to Quash Entire Criminal Proceeding - Relevant legal framework and precedents: Section 482 Cr.PC allows the High Court to exercise its inherent powers to quash proceedings in the interest of justice. - Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Court determined that the request for conversion was not appropriate, as the original petition was solely against the order of the learned Trial Court rejecting the Section 210 Cr.PC application. - Key evidence and findings: The Court found that the petitioners' request for conversion was not supported by the procedural context of the case. - Application of law to facts: The Court applied the principles of procedural law and found no basis for converting the petition at this stage. - Treatment of competing arguments: The respondent's argument that conversion was not permissible was upheld by the Court. - Conclusions: The Court refused to convert the petition into one for quashing the entire proceeding, as it was not procedurally appropriate. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS - The Court upheld the Trial Court's decision that the offenses under Section 138 of the N.I. Act and Sections 406/408/420 IPC were different, and thus, Section 210 Cr.PC did not apply. - The Court emphasized that the inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.PC should not be invoked to convert a petition when it was not procedurally appropriate. - The Court concluded that there was no need to interfere with the order of the learned JMFC dated 12.10.2018, as no irregularity or mistake was found. The petition was dismissed and disposed of, affirming the Trial Court's order and maintaining the proceedings in Complaint Case No. 4683C/2017 under Section 138 of the N.I. Act.
|
