Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 392 (JHR)

Warunendu Nath Gagan v. State Of Jharkhand

2017-02-23

RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY

body2017
JUDGMENT Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J. – Heard Sanjeev Thakur, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Kaushik Sarkhel, learned A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the State. Cr.M.P.No.1528 of 2009 : 2. In this application the petitioner has prayed for quashing the entire criminal proceeding in connection with C.P. Case No.535 of 2006 including the order dated 02.08.2007 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Bokaro whereby and whereunder cognizance has been taken for the offence punishable under Section 420 of the I.P.C. and Section 138 of the Negotiable of Instruments Act. Cr.M.P.No.142 of 2010 : 3. In this application, the same petitioner has challenged the order dated 30.03.2007 in connection with C.P. Case No.495 of 2006 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class at Bokaro by which cognizance has been taken for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable of Instruments Act. 4. It has been stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the recital of the C.P. Case No.535 of 2006 would reveal that for the same cause of action, two separate complaint cases have been instituted. Learned counsel submits that in C.P. Case No.535 of 2006 the subject matter of the dispute is related to the three cheques which have been dishonoured which is the same subject matter in C.P. Case No.495 of 2006. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner cannot be proceeded in the two cases with the same cause of action. In such context, it has been prayed that the entire criminal proceedings in connection with C.P. Case No.535 of 2006 and 495 of 2006 be quashed and set aside. 5. Learned A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the State has opposed the prayer made by the petitioner. 6. It appears that initially, a complaint case was instituted being C.P. Case No.535 of 2006 in which it was alleged that the petitioner had taken a loan of Rs. 8,85,000/- and in lieu of the said loan the petitioner had given three cheques. It has also been alleged that cheque no.0251545 was deposited in the bank on 12.08.2006 but the same was dishonoured due to insufficiency of funds. The petitioner was given a legal notice pursuant to which the complaint case was instituted. 7. 8,85,000/- and in lieu of the said loan the petitioner had given three cheques. It has also been alleged that cheque no.0251545 was deposited in the bank on 12.08.2006 but the same was dishonoured due to insufficiency of funds. The petitioner was given a legal notice pursuant to which the complaint case was instituted. 7. Upon conducting an inquiry under Section 202 of the Cr.P.C. by examining the complainant and his witnesses cognizance was taken under Section 420 of the I.P.C. and Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act on 02.08.2007. Subsequent to the dishonour of the first cheque, the opposite party no.2 had deposited other two cheques which also got dishonoured due to insufficiency of funds which led the opposite party no.2 to file separate complaint case being C.P. Case No.535 of 2006. 8. A bare recital of the averments made in the complaint case nos.495 of 2006 and 535 of 2006 would reveal that first complaint case concentrated itself for the dishonour of the first cheque issued in favour of the opposite party no.2. C.P. Case No.535 of 2006 restricted itself to the rest two cheques issued in favour of the opposite party no.2 by the petitioner. 9. In such circumstance, therefore, it cannot be concluded that for the same cause of action, two separate complaint cases have been instituted as admittedly the cause of action and the subject matter of both the complaint cases are distinct and different. 10. In view of the aforesaid fact, no reason exists to cause interference in the criminal proceeding instituted in C.P. Case No.535 of 2006 and C.P. Case No.495 of 2006 and accordingly, having found no merit in this application, the same is hereby dismissed.