Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 1222 (MP)

VANDANA JAIN v. ABHISHEK JAIN

2010-12-09

INDRANI DATTA

body2010
JUDGMENT : 1. This order shall govern disposal of M. Cr. C. No. 6499/2010, Vandna Jain and others vs. Abhishek Jain and M.Cr.C. No. 399/2010 (Abhishek Jain vs. Vandna Jain, arising out of the same matter, whereby petitioners in M.Cr.C. No. 6499/2010 have filed petition under section 407 of Criminal Procedure Code for transfer of Complaint Case No. 510/2010, Abhishek Jain vs. Ku. Vandna Jain and others pending in the Court of JMFC, Vidisha to the Court of JMFC, Ashok Nagar while petitioner in M.Cr.C. No. 3997/2010 has filed petition under section 407 of Criminal Procedure Code for transfer of Complaint Case No. 1279/2008, Ku. Vandna Jain vs. Abhishek Jain pending in the Court of JMFC, Ashok Nagar to the Court of JMFC, Vidisha. 2. For the sake of convenience, facts of M.Cr.C. No. 6499/2010 are taken into consideration. One private complaint was filed by petitioner No. 1 Vandna Jain against respondent Abhishek Jain under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act which is registered as Case No. 1279/2008, Ku. Vandna Jain vs. Abhishek Jain. Learned JMFC, Ashok Nagar has already taken cognizance against the respondent under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and that case is pending in the Court of JMFC, Ashok Nagar, concerning dishonour of cheque bearing No. 668646000024000. Subsequently, respondent Abhishek Jain has filed one private complaint against Vandna Jain and others under sections 379, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B of Indian Penal Code, which is pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Vidisha and Case No. 510/2010, Abhishek Jain vs. Ku. Vandna Jain and others is also pending in the Court of JMFC Vidisha. As per averments of the complainant, petitioners have stolen a cheque bearing No. 668646000024000 which is issued by Punjab National Bank. 3. It is contended by Shri Jitendra Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners that both the cases i.e. Case No. 510/2010 and Case No. 1279/2008 pending in the Court of JMFC, Vidisha and Court of JMFC, Ashok Nagar, arise out of the same matter. It is further contended that subsequently respondent has filed a false complaint against the petitioners under sections 379, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B of Indian Penal Code, which is registered as Complaint Case No. 510/2010 for pressurizing them and the case is pending in the Court of JMFC, Vidisha. It is further contended that subsequently respondent has filed a false complaint against the petitioners under sections 379, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B of Indian Penal Code, which is registered as Complaint Case No. 510/2010 for pressurizing them and the case is pending in the Court of JMFC, Vidisha. It is also contended that the petitioners are ladies and it is not convenient for them to go Vidisha to attend the case. The petitioners have been falsely implicated in the case by the respondent by filing the subsequent Complaint Case No. 510/2010. It is further contended that the Court of Vidisha is more than 100 kilometers away from the residence of the petitioners. Hence, prayed that in view of general convenience and looking to the petitioners condition, Complaint Case No. 510/2010 pending in the Court of JMFC, Vidisha is to be transferred to the Court of JMFC, Ashok Nagar. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners placed a reliance on B. R. Gupta and another vs. Rohit Jain, (2007)3 SCC (Cri) 425. In that case, cheque issued by the respondent in favour of the petitioner in connection with products sold to respondent by petitioner's company, having its registered office at Delhi, was dishonoured. Therefore, a criminal complaint was filed under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, which was pending before the Court at Delhi. Subsequently, respondent filed a private complaint under sections 420, 465, 467, 471, 468 and 120-B of Indian Penal Code before the Court at Bhatinda against MD and GM (Marketing) of petitioner's Company, because of which they were summoned by that Court. Therefore, the petitioner filed a petition under section 406 of Criminal Procedure Code for transfer of case pending in the Court at Bhatinda to the Court at Delhi. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that both the cases should be heard together at one place which would be the Court at Delhi. Accordingly, case pending in the Court at Bhatinda was transferred to the Court at Delhi for its disposal by itself. 5. Placing reliance on the aforesaid citation, it is contended by Shri Jitendra Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners that Complaint Cases No. 510/2010 pending in the Court of JMFC, Vidisha is to be transferred to the Court of JMFC, Ashok Nagar. 6. 5. Placing reliance on the aforesaid citation, it is contended by Shri Jitendra Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners that Complaint Cases No. 510/2010 pending in the Court of JMFC, Vidisha is to be transferred to the Court of JMFC, Ashok Nagar. 6. Shri D. D. Bansal, learned counsel for the respondent vehemently opposed the prayer of the petitioners and submitted that in both the cases, dispute is about cheque No. 668646000024000 of Punjab National Bank and the parties are also same. Looking to the convenience of both the parties, it is necessary to transfer the Case No. 1279/2008 pending in the Court of JMFC, Ashok Nagar to the Court situated at Vidisha. 7. Heard rival contention of the parties and perused the documents available on record. 8. It is admitted fact that Complaint Case No. 1279/2008 is previously instituted case and Complaint Case No. 510/2010 is subsequently instituted case. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that Complaint Case No. 1279/2008 and Complaint Case No. 510/2010 should be heard together at one place, which should the Court of JMFC, Ashok Nagar. Accordingly, Complaint Case No. 510/2010 titled Abhishek Jain vs. Ku. Vandna Jain and others pending in the Court of JMFC, Vidisha is transferred to the Court of JMFC, Ashok Nagar. The learned trial Court is expected to try both the cases analogously. 9. With the aforesaid observation, both the petitions stand disposed of accordingly. 10. Parties are directed to remain present before the Court of JMFC, Ashok Nagar on 28th January, 2011.