9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (4) TMI 1201X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ty of issuance of cheque by him and it is a clear abuse of process of Court and same could not be sustained in the eyes of law. Therefore, the order of taking cognizance passed by Court of JMFC is perverse and same deserves to be quashed. Petition disposed off. - MCRC 18057 of 2021 And MCRC 60278 of 2021 - - - Dated:- 22-4-2022 - Hon'ble Shri Justice Rajeev Kumar Shrivastava For the Petitioner : Shri Bhagwan Raj Pandey For the Respondent : Shri Aditya Sharma ORDER PER RAJEEV KUMAR SHRIVASTAVA, J:- This Order shall also govern disposal of MCRC 60278 of 2021 preferred by petitioner Vishnu Goyal u/S. 482 of CrPC seeking quashment of Complaint dated 03-10-2016 submitted by respondent Praveen Kumar Dutta under Sections 200 202 CrPC in connection with UNCR 201/2018 (Praveen Kumar Dutta vs. Vishnu Goyal) and other subsequent proceedings initiated therefrom. (2) Similarly, another petition MCRC 18057 of 2021 preferred by petitioner Vishnu Goyal u/S 482 of CrPC seeking set aside the order dated 12-03-2021 passed by Sessions Judge, Vidisha in Criminal Revision No.05/2021 whereby the criminal revision preferred by respondent Praveen Kumar Dutta agains ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y been closed and case has been directed to be listed for final hearing. In spite of knowing trial of such complaint, respondent had filed an application u/S 223 of CrPC for hearing of both complaints analogously and the same was rejected by Court of JMFC vide order dated 18-02-2021. It is further contended that learned Sessions Judge has committed an illegality in allowing Criminal Revision No.05/2021 filed by respondent. An application u/S 91 CrPC filed by respondent on 18-08-2017 before the Court of JMFC which was rejected vide order dated 11-09-2017. Against the order dated 11-09-2017, respondent filed a Criminal Revision No.108 of 2017 before Fourth Additional Sessions Judge, which was dismissed vide order dated 13th January, 2018. Against orders dated 11-09-2017 and 13th January, 2018, respondent filed a petition under Section 482 of CrPC before this Court i.e. MCRC No.3952 of 2018 which was dismissed by a coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 13-12-2018. It is further submitted that the allegation of stealing alleged cheque and misusing the same against the petitioner is false and the complaint has been filed by the respondent u/Ss 200 and 202 CrPC by way of counte ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as SCNIA No.3562/2015 and UNCR No.201/2018 shall be heard and decided together. Contention of petitioner in regard to delay in trial is baseless and same cannot be accepted . It is further contended that respondent has rightly filed complaint u/Ss 200 202 of CrPC as his cheque was stolen by petitioner and same was misused by filing a false complaint u/S 138 of the NI Act and Magistrate concerned has rightly taken cognizance for offence under Sections 420, 468, 469, 471 of IPC against the petitioner. Hence, both petitions deserve dismissal. (8) Heard the ounsel for the parties at length and perused the documents as well as impugned orders available on record. (9) Sections 138 and 139 of NI Act are set out herein below for convenience:- 138 Dishonour of cheque for insufficiency, etc., of funds in the account. -Where any cheque drawn by a person on an account maintained by him with a banker for payment of any amount of money to another person from out of that account for the discharge, in whole or in part, of any debt or other liability, is returned by the bank unpaid, either because of the amount of money standing to the credit of that account is insufficient to honour ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... retaining, or assisting in the disposal or concealment of, property possession of which is alleged to have been transferred by any such offence committed by the first named persons, or of abetment of or attempting to commit any such last- named offence; (f) persons accused of offences under sections 411 and 414 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860). or either of those sections in respect of stolen property the possession of which has been transferred by one offence; (g) persons accused of any offence under Chapter XII of the Indian Penal Code relating to counterfeit coin and persons accused of any other offence under the said Chapter relating to the same coin, or of abetment of or attempting to commit any such offence; and the provisions contained in the former part of this Chapter shall, so far as may be, apply to all such charges: Provided that where a number of persons are charged with separate offences and such persons do not fall within any of the categories specified in this section, the Magistrate may, if such persons by an application in writing, so desire, and if he is satisfied that such persons would not be prejudicially affected thereby, and it is expedient so ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
