Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 223 (RAJ)

Gopal Singh v. State of Rajasthan

2019-01-18

KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA

body2019
JUDGMENT Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. - The present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., 1973 to assail the order dated 2.3.2017 whereby the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate,No.4, Bharatpur took cognizance of offence under Section 381 IPC against the petitioner in Final Report submitted in negative form in FIR No.488/2009 registered at Police Station Kotwali, Bharatpur. It is further prayed that the order dated 29.8.2018 passed by the Special Judge, Dacoity Affected Area, Bharatpur whereby criminal revision preferred by the petitioner was dismissed and order of cognizance was upheld, be set aside. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that one P.K. Mittal on behalf of firm Mittal and Brothers Roop was issued a cheque No.457307 dated 28.7.2009 amounting to Rs. 2,40,000/- in favour of the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner issued a notice under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act and thereafter filed a complaint for prosecution of P.K. Mittal for offence under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No.2, Bharatpur took cognizance of offence under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act against P.K. Mittal vide order dated 21.7.2010. It is further contended that P.K. Mittal preferred a revision petition and the said revision petition was dismissed by the court of Additional Sessions Judge, No.2, Bharatpur. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that in a complaint filed by the petitioner under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, notice of accusation has been served upon P.K. Mittal and now the case is fixed for recording evidence of the complainant. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that as a counter blast to the complaint filed by the petitioner under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, one Vinod Kumar on 20.10.2009 submitted a written report stating therein that bank cheque was stolen and same has been used by the petitioner for filing complaint against P.K. Mittal. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that on the basis thereof, FIR No.488/2009 was registered at Police Station Kotwali, Bharatpur for offence under Section 381 IPC. It is further submitted that in the said FIR No.488/2009, the investigating agency submitted Final Report in negative form. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the trial court accepted the Final Report submitted in negative form. It is further submitted that in the said FIR No.488/2009, the investigating agency submitted Final Report in negative form. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the trial court accepted the Final Report submitted in negative form. Aggrieved against the same, Vinod Kumar filed a revision petition and in the said revision petition, the matter was remanded back to the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, No.4, Bharatpur. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that after the matter was remanded, the court passed the impugned order of cognizance dated 2.3.2017. 5. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, it is apparent that in the complaint filed by the petitioner under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, P.K. Mittal may have taken a stand that he had not issued the cheque. Vinod Kumar, stated to be relative of P.K. Mittal has lodged the FIR No.488/2009 stating therein that his cheque was stolen. 6. Out of two versions propounded, as to which version is correct, requires evidence. 7. To ward off emergence of conflicting findings in two parallel proceedings, without causing any interference in the present petition, it is ordered that the complaint preferred by the petitioner for offence under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act (Annexure-1) titled Gopal Singh vs. P.K. Mittal, and case arising out of FIR No.488/2009 registered at Police Station Kotwali, Bharatpur for offence under Section 381 IPC, in which impugned order of cognizance dated 2.3.2017 has been passed, shall be tried by one court. 8. The court to which both the cases shall be assigned, shall try both the cases separately but simultaneously. 9. A direction is issued to the Sessions Judge, Bharatpur to assign case arising out of complaint (Annexure-1) preferred by the petitioner titled Gopal Singh vs. P.K. Mittal pending the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, No.2, Bharatpur and case arising out of FIR No.488/2009 registered at Police Station Kotwali, Bharatpur in which order of cognizance dated 2.3.2017 has been passed, to one court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate. 10. Needful shall be done by Sessions Judge, Bharatpur within fifteen days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. 11. 10. Needful shall be done by Sessions Judge, Bharatpur within fifteen days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. 11. Considering that in the FIR No.488/2009 registered at Police Station Kotwali, Bharatpur the investigating agency had submitted Final Report in negative form initially and subsequently, in the said case order of cognizance was passed, the court to which case arising out of FIR No.488/2009 registered at Police Station Kotwali, Bharatpur shall be assigned, is directed to accept the bail bonds of the petitioner alongwith bonds of sureties and said bonds to be furnished by the petitioner and sureties shall enure during the course of the trial. 12. In view of directions issued above, the present petition is disposed of.