2024 (7) TMI 295 - HC - Indian Laws

Dishonour of Cheque - entitled to file the complaint for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 138 of the NI Act - not legally wedded wife of the deceased - evidence of testamentary disposition - HELD THAT - It is apparent from the order passed by this Court that this Court had directed the learned Magistrate to receive the evidence of testamentary disposition executed by Shobha Ram vis- -vis Kiran Thakur, permit the accused to adduce evidence in rebuttal thereto and thereafter make a fresh decision on the complaint. Thus, the learned Magistrate was only required to take evidence regarding the testamentary disposition from the complainant and any rebuttal evidence from the accused. It was laid down by the Rajasthan High Court in Chote Lal 1986 (4) TMI 371 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT that where the Court had ordered that the sale deed would be taken in evidence and parties would be permitted to lead evidence in support and rebuttal thereof, it was not a case of open remand but a limited remand. It is not permissible for the learned Trial Court to allow the parties to reopen other matters and accept another document. A similar view was taken by the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Ramabai 1996 (1) TMI 486 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT , wherein it was held that the learned Trial Court had limited jurisdiction in terms of the remand order. It can decide the matter only as per the directions issued by the Appellate Court. The jurisdiction of the Trial Court in case of remand depends upon the order of the remand. The Trial Court cannot enlarge its jurisdiction by allowing the parties to reopen the matters which are not remanded to it. In the present case, the question whether the cheque was issued in discharge of the legal liability or not was never remanded to the learned Trial Court and no evidence could have been admitted on this aspect - the scope of Section 311 of Cr.P.C. is misplaced because the Court is not concerned with the scope of Section 311 Cr.P.C. but the jurisdiction of the Trial Court after the order of the remand. Once the jurisdiction was restricted by the remand order it could not have been enlarged by referring to the provisions of Section 311 of Cr.P.C. The learned Trial Court exercised the jurisdiction not vested in it under the law by going beyond the scope of the remand order. Hence, the present petition is allowed and the order dated 11.9.2023, passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class (JMFC) is set aside. The application filed under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. shall stand dismissed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the order dated 11.9.2023 by the Judicial Magistrate First Class (JMFC), Manali, allowing the application under Section 311 of Cr.P.C.
2. Scope of the remand order issued by the High Court.
3. Jurisdiction of the Trial Court post-remand.

Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Legality of the Order Dated 11.9.2023 by the Judicial Magistrate First Class (JMFC), Manali:
The present petition challenges the order dated 11.9.2023, whereby the JMFC, Manali allowed the respondent's application under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. to bring on record a document allegedly executed by deceased Shobha Ram. The complainant opposed this application, arguing that the document dated 20.12.2013 was intended to prove the receipt of the entire sale consideration and the cancellation of the security cheque, which was beyond the scope of the remand order. The High Court found that the JMFC had exercised jurisdiction not vested in it by going beyond the scope of the remand order, thereby setting aside the JMFC's order and dismissing the application filed under Section 311 of Cr.P.C.

2. Scope of the Remand Order Issued by the High Court:
The High Court had previously remanded the case to the JMFC with specific instructions to receive evidence of the testamentary disposition executed by Shobha Ram vis-`a-vis Kiran Thakur, permit the accused to adduce evidence in rebuttal, and thereafter make a fresh decision on the complaint. The High Court clarified that the remand was limited to the testamentary disposition and did not allow for the introduction of new evidence related to the discharge of legal liability. The High Court emphasized that the term "make a fresh decision" used in the remand order did not imply an open remand but was necessary to ensure a fresh decision after the required evidence was led.

3. Jurisdiction of the Trial Court Post-Remand:
The High Court underscored that the jurisdiction of the Trial Court in a remanded case is confined to the specific directions issued in the remand order. Citing various judgments, including those from the Rajasthan High Court and the Supreme Court, the High Court reiterated that a Trial Court must adhere strictly to the remand order and cannot enlarge its jurisdiction by admitting evidence beyond the remand's scope. The High Court concluded that the JMFC had exceeded its jurisdiction by admitting evidence related to the discharge of legal liability, which was not part of the remand order.

Conclusion:
The High Court allowed the petition, setting aside the JMFC's order dated 11.9.2023, and dismissed the application filed under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. The High Court directed the parties to appear before the Trial Court on 10.7.2024, emphasizing that the observations made were confined to the petition's disposal and would not affect the case's merits.