9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (4) TMI 1201X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gs initiated therefrom. (2) Similarly, another petition MCRC 18057 of 2021 preferred by petitioner Vishnu Goyal u/S 482 of CrPC seeking set aside the order dated 12-03-2021 passed by Sessions Judge, Vidisha in Criminal Revision No.05/2021 whereby the criminal revision preferred by respondent Praveen Kumar Dutta against order dated 18-02-2021 passed by JMFC, Vidisha in SCNIA/3562/2015 (Vishnu Goyal vs. Praveen Kumar Dutta) has been allowed. (3) Since the facts of both petitions are identical in nature, therefore, for the sake of convenience, they are heard simultaneously. (4) Necessary facts giving rise to present petitions, in brief, are that on 07-11- 2015, petitioner submitted a complaint u/S 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act (in shot ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... his Court vide order dated 07-04-2021 has stayed the effect and operation of impugned order dated 12-03-2021 as well as vide order 10-12-2021 has stayed further proceedings with respect to Private Complaint UNCR 201/2018. (5) It is contended on behalf of petitioner that in the complaint filed u/S 138 of NI Act, the evidence of petitioner is concluded as well as right to cross-examination of respondent has already been struck off and defence has already been closed and case has been directed to be listed for final hearing. In spite of knowing trial of such complaint, respondent had filed an application u/S 223 of CrPC for hearing of both complaints analogously and the same was rejected by Court of JMFC vide order dated 18-02-2021. It is fur ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng vague application to create obstacles in the proceedings. Therefore, it is prayed that impugned order dated 12-03-2021 passed by Sessions Judge deserves to be set aside as well as private complaint filed u/Ss 200 & 202 of CrPC by respondent in connection with UNCR No.201/2018 and other subsequent proceedings also deserve to be quashed. (6) In support of his contention, counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Bir Singh Vs. Mukesh Kumar CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS.230-231 OF 2019 (@ SLP(CRL ) NOS. 9334-35 OF 2018) wherein it has been held as under:- ''37. A meaningful reading of the provisions of the Negotiable Instruments Act including, in particular, Sections 20, 87 and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 420, 468, 469, 471 of IPC against the petitioner. Hence, both petitions deserve dismissal. (8) Heard the ounsel for the parties at length and perused the documents as well as impugned orders available on record. (9) Sections 138 and 139 of NI Act are set out herein below for convenience:- "138 Dishonour of cheque for insufficiency, etc., of funds in the account. -Where any cheque drawn by a person on an account maintained by him with a banker for payment of any amount of money to another person from out of that account for the discharge, in whole or in part, of any debt or other liability, is returned by the bank unpaid, either because of the amount of money standing to the credit of that account is insufficient to honour the cheque or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... art, of any debt or other liability." (10) Provisions are made in Section 223 CrPC regrading persons who may be charged and tried together, which run as under:- ''223. What persons may be charged jointly. The following persons may be charged and tried together, namely:- (a) persons accused of the same offence committed in the course same transaction; (b)person accused of an offence and persons accused of abetment of, or attempt to commit, such offence; (c) person accused of more than one offence of the same kind, within the meaning of section 219 committed by them jointly within the period of twelve months; (d) persons accused of different offences committed in the course of the same transaction; (e) persons accused of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... plaints [UNCR 201/2018 (Praveen Kumar Dutta vs. Vishnu Goyal) & SCNIA/3562/2015 (Vishnu Goyal vs. Praveen Kumar Dutta)] analogously, which was was rejected by the Court of JMFC vide order dated 18-02-2021. Meanwhile, an application u/S 91 CrPC was also filed by respondent before the Court of JMFC and same was rejected vide order dated 11-09-2017. Against order dated 11-09-2017, respondent thereafter filed a Criminal Revision No.108 of 2017 before the Sessions Court which was dismissed vide order dated 13th January, 2018. Against orders dated 11-09-2017 and 13th January, 2018, respondent further filed a petition under Section 482 of CrPC before this Court i.e. MCRC No.3952 of 2018 which was dismissed by a coordinate Bench of this Court vide ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
