The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for cross cases to be tried by the same Court of Session, as established in the case of Sudhir and Others Vs. State of M.P, AIR 2001 SC 626.

1. The petitioner has filed the petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C challenging the validity and correctness of the impugned order dated 17.7.2017 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (Shree R.L.Shakya) Gwalior in Criminal Complaint Case No 8850 of 2014, whereby the said case had been committed for trial to the Court of Sessions Judge Gwalior.

2. The brief facts for adjudication of the petition are given below :

2.1. Upon the complaint of petitioner, Criminal Complaint Case No.8850 of 2014 cause title Nitin Singhal Vs. Purushottam Chugh is registered against the respondent no.1 Purushottam Chugh under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short “the Act”) and the case was pending on the file of learned ACJM Gwalior.

2.2. Upon the complaint of respondent no.1, Criminal Complaint Case No.310 of 2017 cause title Purushottam Chugh Vs. Nitin Singhal and another was registered against the petitioner and Vipin Garg under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120B of the I.P.C and the case was pending on the file of learned ACJM Gwalior.

2.3. In Criminal Complaint Case No.8850 of 2014, respondent No.1 made an application dated 9.9.2017 praying that Criminal Complaint Case No. 310 of 2017 is triable by a Court of Session and the present case (Criminal Complaint Case No.8850 of 2014) and Criminal Complaint Case No.310 of 2017 are cross cases. Therefore, Criminal Complaint Case No.8850 of 2014 be also committed to the Court of Sessions Judge Gwalior.

2.4. Vide the impugned order dated 17.7.2017, the learned ACJM allowed the application and committed Criminal Complaint Case No.8850 of 2014 to the Court of Sessions Judge Gwalior. Hence, this petition.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that there is no provision in the Cr.P.C whereby, Criminal Complaint Case No.8850 of 2014 could be committed to the Court of Sessions Judge Gwalior because in that case the trial will be held as summons case as per the procedure set out in Chapter XX Cr.P.C in view of the punishment provided for under Section 138 of the Act. He also contends that the learned ACJM has wrongly held that both the cases are cross cases. Upon these contentions, he submits that the learned ACJM had committed a legal error in committing Criminal Complaint Case No.8850 of 2014 to the Court of Sessions Judge Gwalior. Therefore, the impugned order be set-aside by allowing this petition.

4. Learned Public Prosecutor has left the matter for decision to the discretion of this Court on the ground that both the cases are registered upon the complaints of the parties concerned.

5. I have given careful consideration to the arguments raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the impugned order and the material on record.

6. At this stage, it would be appropriate to mention, in brief, the case of the petitioner and that of respondent no.1 : -

6.1. The petitioner filed the complaint against respondent no.1 under Section 138 of the Act alleging that he gave the latter a loan of Rs.1,75,000/- (one lac seventy five thousand) in cash to meet his family obligations. For repayment of the loan, he gave him a cheque of the said amount bearing No.438538 dated 10.12.2013 (for short “the cheque”) being drawn on the Oriental Bank of Commerce Branch Huzrat Chowk Gwalior (for short “the drawee bank”), where he (respondent No.1) has the bank account. He presented the cheque for collection of the amount in the Punjab National Bank Branch Naya Bazar, Lashker Gwalior (for short “the payee bank”), where he (complainant) has his bank account. On 28.1.2014, the payee bank had informed him that the drawee bank had dishonoured the cheque with the remarks “funds insufficient” and “payment stopped” by the drawer (respondent No.1). Thereafter, he gave respondent No.1 the demand notice in terms of Section 138 of the Act but respondent no.1 had not given him the amount in the statutory time period. Hence, he filed the complaint for his prosecution. The complaint is reg