ORDER :

1. I have heard the arguments of the petitioner’s counsel and respondent’s counsel though represented, did not choose to appear and argue the case inspite of several opportunities given to the counsel.

2. The petitioner by invoking writ jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India r/w Section 482 of Cr.P.C. has sought the writ of certiorari or direction or order quashing the order dated 13/8/2009 and further the entire proceedings in CC No.1633/2009 pending on the file of the J.M.F.C. IV Court, Belagavi, and issue any other writ or directions to meet the ends of justice.

3. The petitioner in the writ petition mainly contended that filing of two parallel proceedings in respect of same transaction before the two different forum is an abuse of process of law. The contention that proceedings in CC No.1633/2009 is hit by the principals of Doctrine of Double Jeopardy, collateral estoppels, Res-judicata, rule of promissory estoppels, etc. The other contention that the respondent has availed civil remedy as per law by filing Arbitration case No. ARB/BGM/LOK/CAMP/469/2009 and obtained the award and filing of criminal case amounts to abuse of process. The other contention that respondent knowing fully well that the petitioner is neither borrower and nor the legal enforceable liability is exists as on the date of issuance of cheque and simultaneously, initiated two proceedings and the same amounts to violation of Articles 14, 19, 20 and 21 of the Constitution of India.

4. The counsel appearing for petitioner in his arguments also vehemently contended that along with this petition, he has produced certified copy of the complaint, the sworn statement on affidavit, order sheet and also arbitration award copy and Annexures-A to D and contend that the respondent cannot continue two proceedings in respect of a single transaction and also relied upon the judgment of this Court reported in Vinod Vs The Secretary, Jai Bhavani Mahila Co operative Belgaum reported in (2013) 1 KCCR 414. The counsel also brought to my notice para Nos.4 to 6 of the judgment.

5. The counsel also relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court reported in AIR 2010 SC 1907 between Damodar S. Prabhu Vs. Sayed Babalal H., contending that it is mandatory for the complainant to disclose that no other complaint has been filed in any other Court in respect of the same transaction. Such a disclosure should be made on a sworn affidavit which should accompany the complaint filed under Section 200 Cr.P.C. If it is found that much multiple complaints have been filed, orders for transfer of the complaint to the first Court should be given, generally speaking by the High Court after imposing heavy costs on the complainant for resorting to such a practice and contend that these directions should be given a effect prospectively.

6. The counsel also relied upon the judgment reported in 2001 (2) SCC 247 between Dr. Vijay Laxmi Sadho Vs. Jagdish has brought to my notice para 33 and contend that in this judgment, the Apex Court held that to maintain judicial discipline, it is not proper to sacrifice certainty of law. The judicial decorum, no less than legal propriety forms the basis of judicial procedure and it must be respected at all costs.

7. Having heard the arguments of petitioner’s counsel and also the material on record, this Court has to examine whether this Court can quash the proceedings as sought by the petitioner in view of the grounds urged in the petition.

8. Before considering the grounds urged, first I would like to make a mention in brief factual matrix of the case. No dispute that the respondent herein has initiated two proceedings against this petitioner, one is under the Arbitration proceedings and obtained the order of award on 5/3/2012. The other proceeding is initiating of the criminal proceedings against this petitioner in CC No.1633/2009 and this complaint was filed on 13/8/2009 and the Court below has taken cognizance based on the sworn statemen