IMPORTANT POINT
Possession and ownership of property need not always go together.

J.B. Pardiwala, J.—Since the issues raised in all the captioned applications are more or less the same, those were heard analogously and are being disposed of by this common judgment and order.

2. By these applications, the applicant – original accused No.3 seeks to invoke the inherent powers of this Court praying for quashing of the proceedings of the Criminal Cases referred to in the prayer clause of each of the applications pending in the Court of the learned Principal Civil Jude and Judicial Magistrate First Class, Borsad, District: Anand.

3. The Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.18025 of 2014 is treated as the lead matter.

4. The facts of the case are as under:

4.1 The respondent No.2 – original complainant filed a private complaint for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act as well as for the offence punishable under Sections 420 read with 114 of the Indian Penal Code against the applicant herein and two other coaccused in the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Borsad.

4.2 It appears from the averments made in the complaint that the original accused No.1, namely, Manoj Jayantibhai Patel, proprietor of a proprietory concern running in the name of M/s. Hina Tobacco issued a cheque drawn in the name of the accused No.2, namely, Ramesh Chhotabhai Thakore dated 13th January, 2009 for the amount of Rs.1,00,000/( Rupees one lac only) drawn on the Dena Bank, Bhadran. The cheque issued by the accused No.1 in favour of the accused No.2 was towards the discharge of some debts incurred by the accused No.1 towards the accused No.2.

4.3 It appears that the accused No.2 also had some transaction with the applicant herein. The accused No.2 in turn indorsed the cheque in favour of the applicant herein.

4.4 The applicant, in turn, indorsed the cheque and got it discounted through the complainant. The complainant is one of the partners of a partnership firm engaged in the business of finance and discounting.

4.5 It is the case of the complainant that the applicant herein, after indorsing the cheque, received Rs.1,00,000/from the complainant. It is also averred in the complaint that the applicant herein also signed few vouchers acknowledging the receipt of the amount. The applicant herein is also said to have issued a promissory note in favour of the complainant in that regard.

4.6 It is the case of the complainant that, according to the instructions of the applicant herein, he presented the cheque for encashment in the account maintained with the Dena Bank, Bhadran Branch. The bank returned the cheque to the complainant with an endorsement “not arranged for”.

4.7 It is the case of the complainant that the dishonour of the cheque was brought to the notice of all the three accused persons, but they failed to make the payment. After completing the necessary legal formalities and issue of notice, the complainant thought fit to file five different complaints as five cheques were involved.

4.8 It appears that the Judicial Magistrate First Class took cognizance upon all the five complaints and issued process for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

4.9 The complaints culminated in five different criminal cases.

4.10 The applicant – original accused No.3 has come up with five applications under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, praying for quashing of the criminal proceedings.

5. Mr. Kunal S. Shah, the learned advocate appearing for the applicant vehemently submitted that the complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act against his client is not maintainable. He submitted that his client is not the drawer of the cheque. According to Mr. Shah, it is the accused No.1, who had issued the cheque in favour of the accused No.2, and the accused No.2, after indorsing the cheque, handed it over to his client. His client, in turn, indorsed the cheque and got it discounted through the complainant.

6. According to Mr. Shah,