Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 343 (PNJ)

Anoop Bhakoo v. Subhash Chander Gupta

2005-03-04

SURYA KANT

body2005
Judgment Surya Kant, J. 1. This is a petition under Sec.482 Cr. P. C. , for quashing the complaint No.146/2 dated 13.7.1999, under Sec.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act read with Sec.420 IPC pending in the court of JMIC, Ludhiana. 2. The petitioners purchased some acrylic yarn from the complainant and issued them cheque amounting to Rs.9,80,000/-, which the complainant presented to get it credited in its account. However, the same having been dishonoured for want of sufficient funds in the account of the petitioners, a complaint under Sec.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was filed which is stated to be pending at the stage of complainants evidence. 3. It appears that during the pendency of the aforesaid first complaint, the petitioners entered into a compromise with the complainant and promised to pay the due amount and, therefore, issued another cheque bearing no.148129 dated 3.5.1999 for an amount of Rs.9,80,000/-. This cheque appears to have been issued with dishonest intentions and obviously the second cheque also stood dishonoured for want of sufficient funds in the account of the petitioners. This incident also led to initiation of second complaint under Sec.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act read with section 420 IPC. 4. The petitioners have now come up for quashing of the second complaint on the ground that one complaint filed by the respondent complainant under Sec.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is already pending, therefore, second complaint with regard to the same liability i. e. same cause of action is not maintainable. Reliance has been placed upon judgment of the Delhi High Court in Venkatesh Dutt V/s. MS Shoes East Limited 2004 (2) RCR (Crl.) 24 (Delhi ). 5. The scope of interference by this court in summary proceedings under section 482 Cr. P. C. is well known. The foundation of the prayer for quashing of the second complaint filed by the respondents rests upon more than one factual averment contained in this petition in relation to which no conclusive opinion can be formed by this Court in these proceedings. Similarly, the judgment of the Delhi High Court upon which reliance has been placed by the counsel for the petitioners, does not come to his rescue for the reason that the prayer for quashing in this petition does not pertain to the first complaint rather is confined to the subsequent complaint, which even according to the said judgment is maintainable. Similarly, the judgment of the Delhi High Court upon which reliance has been placed by the counsel for the petitioners, does not come to his rescue for the reason that the prayer for quashing in this petition does not pertain to the first complaint rather is confined to the subsequent complaint, which even according to the said judgment is maintainable. However, there appears to be some merit in the contention that the petitioners be not subjected to trial before different courts on different dates. Keeping in view the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case and in view of the fact that the complainant and the accused are common in the two cases, it is directed that both the criminal complaints filed by the respondent be clubbed and entrusted to one court of the learned Judicial Magistrate. Disposed of. Petition dismissed.