Back
2019 Supreme(Raj) 2701
IN THE HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN
Mr. Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J.
Gopal Singh - Appellant
Versus
State Of Rajasthan And Another - Respondent
Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 6231 of 2018
Decided On : 18-01-2019
Himmat Singh Bikarwar, Advocate, for the Appellant; NS Dhakad PP, for the Respondents
In cases involving conflicting versions and the possibility of conflicting findings in parallel proceedings, the court may direct that both cases be tried by one court simultaneously to avoid such conflicts.
Headnote:
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE, 1973 - SECTION 482 - QUASHING OF FIR - ORDER OF COGNIZANCE - COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 138 OF NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS ACT - COUNTER COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 381 IPC - BOTH CASES TO BE TRIED BY ONE COURT SIMULTANEOUSLY - BAIL GRANTED TO THE PETITIONER.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act against P.K. Mittal for issuing a cheque that bounced. Mittal filed a revision petition, which was dismissed. In response, Vinod Kumar, Mittal's relative, filed an FIR (No. 488/2009) alleging that the cheque was stolen and used by the petitioner to file the complaint. The police submitted a negative final report in the FIR, but the court took cognizance of the offense under Section 381 IPC. The petitioner challenged this order in a revision petition, which was dismissed.
Finding of the Court:
The court observed that two conflicting versions were presented: the petitioner claimed that Mittal issued the cheque, while Mittal claimed that the cheque was stolen. The court held that evidence was needed to determine which version was correct.
Issues: Whether the court should quash the FIR and the order of cognizance in the case arising from FIR No. 488/2009.
Ratio Decidendi: To avoid conflicting findings in two parallel proceedings, the court directed that both the complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and the case arising from FIR No. 488/2009 be tried by one court simultaneously. The court also directed the Sessions Judge to assign both cases to one court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate.
Final Decision: The court disposed of the petition and directed the Sessions Judge to assign both cases to one court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate within 15 days. The court also granted bail to the petitioner.
JUDGMENT
Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. - The present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., 1973 to assail the order dated 2.3.2017 whereby the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate,No.4, Bharatpur took cognizance of offence under Section 381 IPC against the petitioner in Final Report submitted in negative form in FIR No.488/2009 registered at Police Station Kotwali, Bharatpur. It is further prayed that the order dated 29.8.2018 passed by the Special Judge, Dacoity Affected Area, Bharatpur whereby criminal revision preferred by the petitioner was dismissed and order of cognizance was upheld, be set aside.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that one P.K. Mittal on behalf of firm Mittal and Brothers Roop was issued a cheque No.457307 dated 28.7.2009 amounting to Rs. 2,40,000/- in favour of the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner issued a notice under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act and thereafter filed a complaint for prosecution of P.K. Mittal for offence under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No.2, Bharatpur took cognizance of offence under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act against P.K. Mittal vide order dated 21.7.2010. It is further contended that P.K. Mittal preferred a revision petition and the said revision petition was dismissed by the court of Additional Sessions Judge, No.2, Bharatpur. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that in a complaint filed by the petitioner under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, notice of accusation has been served upon P.K. Mittal and now the case is fixed for recording evidence of the complainant.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that as a counter blast to the complaint filed by the petitioner under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, one Vinod Kumar on 20.10.2009 submitted a written report stating therein that bank cheque was stolen and same has been used by the petitioner for filing complaint against P.K. Mittal. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that on the basis thereof, FIR No.488/2009 was registered at Police Station Kotwali, Bharatpur for offence under Section 381 IPC. It is further submitted that in the said FIR No.488/2009, the investigating agency submitted Final Report in negative form. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the trial court accepted the Final Report submitted in negative form. Aggrieved against the same, Vinod Kumar filed a revision petition and in the said revision petition, the matter was remanded back to the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, No.4, Bharatpur. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that after the matter was remanded, the court passed the impugned order of cognizance dated 2.3.2017.
5. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, it is apparent that in the complaint filed by the petitioner under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, P.K. Mittal may have taken a stand that he had not issued the cheque. Vinod Kumar, stated to be relative of P.K. Mittal has lodged the FIR No.488/2009 stating therein that his cheque was stolen.
6. Out of two versions propounded, as to which version is correct, requires evidence.
7. To ward off emergence of conflicting findings in two parallel proceedings, without causing any interference in the present petition, it is ordered that the complaint preferred by the petitioner for offence under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act (Annexure-1) titled Gopal Singh vs. P.K. Mittal, and case arising out of FIR No.488/2009 registered at Police Station Kotwali, Bharatpur for offence under Section 381 IPC, in which impugned order of cognizance dated 2.3.2017 has been passed, shall be tried by one court.
8. The court to which both the cases shall be assigned, shall try both the cases separately but simultaneously.
9. A direction is issued to t
