Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 2540 (RAJ)

Vijay Kumar v. State Of Rajasthan

2017-11-18

PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

body2017
JUDGMENT ORDER Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J. - The petitioner has preferred these criminal misc. petitions under Section 482 Cr.P.C., 1973 against the order dated 27.05.2017 passed by learned Additional Session Judge No. 1, Sri Ganganagar in Criminal Revision No. 124/2016 (CIS No. 182/2016) & 123/2016 (CIS No. 179/016) by which the revision filed by the petitioner was dismissed, revision filed against the order dated 30.09.2016 passed by learned Special Judicial Magistrate (N.I. Act Cases) No. 2, Sri Ganganagar in Case No. 958/2016 & 957/2016 by which the application filed by the petitioner under Section 219 Cr.P.C., 1973 was rejected and to set aside the same. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that on bare reading of Section 219 Cr.P.C., 1973 the consolidation ought to have been permitted by the learned courts below. 3. Learned counsel for the respondent opposed the same. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment passed by this Hon''ble Court in the case of Raj Kumar vs. Smt. Neelam Pathak & Anr. reported in 2012 (3) Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 1445 . The relevant portion of the judgment reads as under: "The instant misc. petition has been filed on behalf of the petitioner challenging the order dated 05.06.2008 passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Division) and Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Banswara in Criminal Case No. 188/2017, whereby the application filed by the petitioner under Section 219 Cr.P.C., 1973 read with Section 223 Cr.P.C., 1973 has been rejected. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in this case various complaints which were filed by the complainant against the petitioner were involving a similar type of offences committed within a period of one year and therefore, the trial of the three cases being cases Nos. 188/2007, 189/2007 and 190/2007 should have been directed to be consolidated. In support of his arguments, learned counsel has placed reliance on the decision of this Court rendered in the case of Kamal Garg vs. State & Anr. reported in, 2008(1) Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 459 . On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No. 1 submits that in this case, the petitioner is facing trial for the offence under section 138 of the N.I. Act. reported in, 2008(1) Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 459 . On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No. 1 submits that in this case, the petitioner is facing trial for the offence under section 138 of the N.I. Act. He submits that in the case of Negotiable Instruments Act, the charge is not framed against the accused but only the accusation is read out and therefore, the provision of Section 219 Cr.P.C., 1973 is not applicable to a case under the Negotiable Instruments Act. In support of his arguments, learned counsel has placed reliance on the decision of this Court rendered in the case of Vijay Dev & Ors. vs. Kailash Chand & Anr. reported in, 2008 (2) Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 1206 and Nirmal Singh vs. Bhoj Raj reported in, 2007 (2) Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 1710 . Having heard learned counsel for the parties and upon considering the arguments advanced at the bar and after going through the order impugned, it is evident that the petitioner is facing complaints for the offence under section 138 of the NI Act. In the case involving offence under section 138 of the NI Act, only the accusation is reads out to the accused and no formal charge is to be framed. Prima facie, the provision of Section 219 Cr.P.C., 1973 would have no application to a summons case. This Court whilst considering the same provision in the case of Vijay Dev (supra) held that sections 219 and 220 Cr.P.C., 1973 do not apply to the offence under Negotiable Instruments Act. Thus, the learned trial Court has committed no error in rejecting the application filed by the petitioner for consolidating all the cases registered against the petitioner. Resultantly, this misc. petition as well as stay petition being bereft of of any force are hereby rejected. 5. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record of the case, while following the aforementioned precedent law which justifies the consecutive impugned orders passed by the learned trial courts and reiterates that since the matter pertains to section 138 of NI Act and only the accusation is read out to the accused and no formal charge is to be framed, therefore, invocation of section 219 of Cr.P.C., 1973 is not required. 6. In light of the aforesaid observation, the present petitions are accordingly dismissed. Petition Dismissed.