9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (8) TMI 2020X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ischarge of the liability the accused executed certain documents like promissory note etc. and also issued two post dated cheques one in the sum in 70 Lakhs and other in the sum of Rs. 24,15,000/. The cheques were deposited by the complainant which were dishonoured by the bankers on the ground of "payment stop by drawer". Since inspite of the demand notice the amount was not paid. The said complaint was filed. ii) Learned Magistrate issued process for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The respondent No.2 filed a complaint with Vakola Police Station, Mumbai against the petitioner in respect of the same allegations and the FIR was registered vide CR No. 349 of 2012. The said FIR was registered on 8th August, 2012 for the offence under Section 420 of Indian Penal Code. On completing investigation, chargesheet is filed in this case. iii) The petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 4258 of 2013 in this court that two different criminal cases at two different courts cannot be prosecuted against the petitioner for the same set of allegations arising out of the same transaction. This Court by order dated 23rd January, 2014 disposed of the said petition directing ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in both the cases. It was contended that the High Court vide order 23rd January, 2013 passed in Writ Petition No. 4258 of 2013 had directed the transfer of RCC No.39 of 2014 to the Court at Pen for being tried alongwith SCC No. 589 of 2010. It was also contended that the petitioner may not be compelled to complete his crossexamination by leaving the examinationinchief in other case incomplete which would cause grave prejudice to the petitioner. The said application was opposed by the Respondent No.2. By order dated 31st July, 2018 the application preferred by the petitioner was rejected. 3. Learned advocate appearing for the the petitioner submitted that the trial Court has committed an error in rejecting the application preferred by the petitioner. The order is contrary to law. It is submitted that the High Court vide order dated 23rd January, 2013 passed in Writ Petition No. 4258 of 2013 had directed that RCC No. 39 of 2014 be transferred to the Court at Pen for being tried alongwith SCC No. 589 of 2010. It is further submitted that both cases are in respect of the same transaction and the allegations and the documents in the said case are common and if the petitioner is compell ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ress in the trial. He relied upon of the decision of Supreme Court in the case Sangitaben Mahindrabhai Patel Vs. State of Gujarat and another [2012 (7) SCC 621] 5. The Respondent No.2 filed a complaint for offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act on 30th December, 2010 against the petitioner. The respondent No.2 also registered an FIR on 8th August, 2012 for offence under Section 420 of Indian Penal Code. The private complaint was filed before the court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class at Pen. However, the First Information Report was registered with Wakola Police Station, Mumbai for offence under Section 420 of Indian Penal Code. The petitioner had preferred Writ Petition No. 4258 of 2013 in this Court. The Court had directed that the criminal case pending in the Court at Mumbai for offence under Section 420 of Indian Penal Code which is arising out of first information report registered by the Respondent No.2 be transferred to the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class for being tried alongwith SCC No. 589 of 2010. The trial Court was directed to expeditiously disposed of both the criminal cases. On perusal of the observations made in paragraph 4 of ord ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pending in the Court since 2010. As stated the examinationinchief was recorded in 2014 and thereafter there is no progress in the case. The learned Magistrate while rejecting the application has observed that Summary Criminal Case No. 548 of 2010 is filed for an offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act and therefore it must be decided at the earliest. On the contrary, Regular Criminal Case No.39 of 2014 was filed under Section 420 of Indian Penal Code. The ingredients of both the sections are different. It was also observed that the order passed by the High Court does not mention that the evidence of both the cases shall be recorded together. It is also not mentioned in that order that the complainant shall first lead evidence in connection with the case No. 39 of 2014 which is filed under Section 420 of Indian Penal Code and thereafter he shall lead the evidence of in case No. 589 of 2010 which is filed under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. The only direction of the High Court is that both the cases be tried by the same court to avoid conflicting decision. I do not find any infirmity in the order passed by the learned Magistrate. The relief sought in the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
