HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN

BENCH AT JAIPUR

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 3869/2021

Shri Ramavtar Sharma Son Of Nanagram Sharma, Resident Of

Shrirampura, Lakhna, Tehsil Sanganer, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

----Petitioner

Versus

Jumbo Finvest (India) Limited, Through Its Manager And

Authorised Officer Shri Mohammad Javed Khan, Head Office 102,

Kanchan Apartment, L.b.s. College Ke Samne, Tilak Nagar,

Jaipur.

----Respondent

For Petitioner(s)

:

Mr. Amitabh Jatav, Adv.

For Respondent(s)

:

Ms. Naina Saraf, Adv.

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA

Order

ORDER RESERVED ON :: 29.04.20

22

ORDER PRONOUNCED ON :: 05.05.2022

This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

filed by the petitioner for quashing the Criminal Proceedings in

Criminal Case No.2078/2018 titled as Jumbo Vs. Ramavtar

Offence under Section 138 of N.I. Act., 1881 pending before

Special Metropolitan Magistrate (N.I. Act Cases) No.15, Jaipur

Metropolitan.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner

took loan from respondent and he had given a post dated signed

cheque being No.461588 of Rs.27,41,551/- and the said cheque

was dishonoured. The respondent initiated proceedings under

Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act before the Competent

Court. Complainant has also initiated the proceedings under

(2 of 3)

[CRLMP-3869/2021]

Arbitration Act. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits

that arbitration proceedings under Section 138 of N.I. Act can not

run simultaneously. So, criminal proceedings initiated by the

respondent under Section 138 of N.I. Act may kindly be quashed.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon

the judgment of Apex Court in the Case of Amibhai Anilchandra

Shah Vs. The Central Bureau of Investigation reported in

(2013) 6 SCC 348.

Learned counsel for the respondent has opposed the

arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner and

submitted that arbitration proceedings and the proceedings under

Section 138 of N.I. Act are separate cause of action. Merely

because arbitration proceedings are pending, it does not entitle

the accused to get the criminal proceedings quashed. He further

submitted that arbitrator proceedings is completed against the

petitioner and award has been passed against him.

Learned counsel for the respondent has placed reliance upon

the following judgments: (1) M/s Sri Krishna Agencies Vs.

State of A.P. & Anr. in Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.)

Nos.6878/2007 decided on 11.11.2008 and (2) Rajendra

Prasad Jangid Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr. in S. B.

Criminal Misc. (Petition) No.7308/2021 decided on

18.11.2021.

I have considered the arguments advanced by learned

counsel for the petitioner as well as learned counsel for the

respondent.

No ground is made out to quash the criminal proceedings

initiated against the petitioner under Section 138 of N.I. Act

because proceedings of N.I. Act pertains to dishonour of the

(3 of 3)

[CRLMP-3869/2021]

cheque worth of Rs.27,41,551/-. Arbitration proceedings were

initiated against the petitioner as per agreement between the

parties. So, the petitioner does not have a right to quash the

criminal proceedings initiated against him. Thus, the present

petition filed by the petitioner, being devoid of merits, is liable to

be dismissed.

The Criminal Miscellaneous Petition stands dismissed.

Stay application also stands disposed of.

(NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J

Jatin /121