Back
2023 Supreme(P&H) 2133
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
GURVINDER SINGH GILL, J.
Khem Chand Goyal & Ors. – Petitioners
Versus
State of Haryana & Ors. – Respondents
CRM-M-57676 of 2022 (O&M)
Decided On : 24-05-2023
Mr. Aditya Sanghi, Advocate; For the Petitioners
Mr. Gurmeet Singh, AAG, Haryana.
Mr. Yashdeep Nain, Advocate for Respondent No. 3.
Headnote:(A) Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - Section 138 - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 4 - Petitioners sought transfer of complaints for simultaneous trials - The Sessions Judge dismissed the application, finding no feasibility in transferring cases and observing differences in subject matters - (Paras 1 to 12)
(B) Transfer of cases - Exclusive courts established for specific offences cannot enable the transfer of cases under different laws, especially when they don't arise from the same transaction - (Paras 10, 11)
(C) Nature of proceedings - Offences under section 138 are quasi-criminal and designed for swift resolution; contrasting with IPC offences which involve lengthy trials and severe penalties - (Paras 9, 12)
Facts of the case:
The petitioners challenged a Sessions Court's order refusing to transfer two complaints under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and a trial arising from FIR No. 129 under IPC. Both cases involve parties from the same family, but have differing subject matters.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the separate nature of the cases precluded transfer to a single court and emphasized the exclusive handling of Negotiable Instruments cases by designated courts.
Issues: Can cases under section 138 be transferred for combined trial with an FIR under IPC? Is the application a delay tactic?
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that exclusive courts for Negotiable Instruments must handle cases separately due to their distinct natures and that attempts to combine them could mislead legal proceedings.
Result: Petition dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. nature of complaints and fir involved. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. arguments for and against transfer of cases. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. feasibility and implications of case transfer. (Para 6 , 8) |
| 4. legal reasoning on trial and jurisdiction. (Para 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 5. final decision and dismissal of petition. (Para 13 , 14) |
JUDGMENT
Gurvinder Singh Gill, J.
The petitioners assail order dated 24.11.2022 (Annexure P-1) passed by learned Sessions Judge, Hisar whereby an application dated 14.11.2022 (Annexure P-2) filed by the petitioners seeking transfer of two complaints under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and another trial arising out of FIR No. 129 dated 9.3.2021, Police Station Hisar City, District Hisar under Sections 34 , 406, 420 IPC (Annexure P-4) to one Court for simultaneous disposal, has been dismissed.
2. While it is petitioners No. 1 and 2 [Khem Chand Goyal and Rahul Goyal] who are facing trial in respect of FIR No. 129 dated 9.3.2021, Police Station Hisar City, District Hisar, it is petitioners No. 1 and 3 [Khem Chand Goyal and M/s Agarwanshi Trading Company] who are arrayed as accused in complaint i.e. CNR No.HRHS03-002969-2021 (Annexure P-5) and it is petitioners No. 2 and 4 [Rahul Goyal and M/s Vanya Enterprises] who are arrayed as accused in complaint i.e. CNR No.HRHS03-002970-2021.
3. The petitioners, in their application Annexure P-2 averted that the subject matter as well as the documents and the witnesses are almost one and the same in all the three cases and even the complainant is the same person and as such, all the cases are required to be tried and decided by one and the same Court.
4. The said application was resisted by the complainant Madan Lal Bansal - respondent No. 3, who filed reply whereby he took a stand that the application has been filed simply to delay the conclusion of trial and that the complainant on account of dishonour of cheques and consequential lack of funds was suffering and had already received notices under SARFAESI Act from DRT, Chandigarh. The learned Sessions Judge upon considering the application dismissed the same vide order dated 24.11.2022 (Annexure P-1) upon finding that it is not feasible to transfer the cases under the Negotiable Instruments Act to any other Court as the same has to be dealt with by an exclusive Court and while also observing that the subject matter of FIR was different.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that since the matter is between same parties, although there are two different firms of the petitioners Khem Chand Goyal and Rahul Goyal who are both father and son, it would be in the interest of justice that all the matters are decided together by the same Court so as to avoid any conflicting findings. The learned counsel in order to hammer forth his aforesaid submission places reliance upon a judgment of this Court i.e. Criminal Misc. No.10457-M of 1999 Meenakshi Gupta v. Smt. Sushma Kedia .
6. On the other hand, the learned counsel representing respondent No. 3 has submitted that in the present case the entire evidence in respect of the two complaints under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act already stands recorded and the said matters are virtually at the final stage and that the present application is nothing but a ploy to further delay the matter as the recording of evidence in the trial arising out of FIR No. 129 dated 9.3.2021, Police Station Hisar City, District Hisar has not concluded. The learned counsel has further submitted that in any case the clubbing of the cases under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act with a trial arising out of FIR No. 129 dated 9.3.2021, Police Station Hisar City, District Hisar under Sections 34 , 406, 420 IPC is not legally permissible in view of provisions of Section 4 Cr.P.C. and that as such, the application for transfer of the cases, in any case, deserved to be dismissed, as has been rightly dismissed by the Sessions Judge.
7. This Court has considered rival
