Mohd Ibrahim vs State Of U.P. And Another
2025 Latest Caselaw 3502 ALL

Allahabad High Court

Mohd Ibrahim vs State Of U.P. And Another on 15 January, 2025

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:6419
 
Court No. - 77
 

 
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 30667 of 2024
 

 
Applicant :- Mohd Ibrahim
 
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Najakat Ali
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Prem Sagar Verma
 

 
Hon'ble Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal,J.
 

1. Heard Sri Mahavir Yadav, Advocate holding brief of Sri Najakat Ali, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Prem Sagar Verma, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 and Sri Prem Prakash Tiwari, learned AGA for the State.

2. The present application has been filed for the following relief:

"It is, therefore most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to this allow the present application and to direct the learned court concerned to accept one common sureties for all the cases in complaint cases bearing (1) complaint no. 15584 of 2022, summoning order dated 19.1.2024 (2) complaint no. 16064 of 2022, summoning order dated 29.7.2023 (3) complaint no. 16206 of 2022, summoning order dated 17.1.2024 (4) complaint no. 16062 of 2022, summoning order dated 20.7.2023 (5) complaint no. 16067 of 2022, summoning order dated 30.5.2023 (6) complaint no. 16223 of 2022, summoning order dated 16.1.2024 (7) complaint no. 16059 of 2022, summoning order dated 12.1.2024 (8) complaint no. 16069 of 2022, summoning order dated 28.9.2023 (9) complaint no. 16203 of 2022, summoning order dated 30.1.2024 (10) complaint no. 16213 of 2022, summoning order dated 19.1.2024 (11) complaint no. 15573 of 2022, summoning order dated 18.10.2023, (12) complaint no. 15577 of 2022, summoning order dated 16.5.2023 (13) complaint no. 15582 of 2022, summoning order dated 30.5.2023 (14) complaint no. 16068 of 2022, summoning order dated 20.7.2023, (15) complaint no. 16221 of 2022, summoning order dated 20.7.2023 (16) complaint no. 16222 of 2022, summoning order dated 29.7.2023 (17) complaint no. 15583 of 2022, summoning order dated 20.10.2023 (18) complaint no. 16065 of 2022, summoning order dated 23.1.2023 (19) complaint no. 16220 of 2022, summoning order dated 23.1.2023 (20) complaint no. 16066 of 2022, summoning order dated 30.1.2024, (21) complaint no. 16216 of 2022, (22) complaint no. 16210 of 2022, (23) complaint no. 16263 of 2022, (24) complaint no. 16061 of 2022, (25) complaint no. 16060 of 2022, (26) complaint no. 16828 of 2022, (27) complaint no. 8315 of 2022, (28) complaint no. 15579 of 2022, (29) complaint no. 16828 of 2022, whereby summoned Under sections 138 ?.?. Act with Police Station Kotwali District Agra on several dates in the year 2022/2023 by giving benefit to the applicant under Article 21 of the constitution of India, during the pendency of present 482 Cr.P.C. application before this Hon'ble Court, otherwise the applicant shall suffer irreparable loss and injury. And/ or pass any suitable order which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper on the facts and circumstances of the case."

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that in pursuance of the order dated 24.05.2024 on Application u/s 482 No.8916 of 2024, the applicant had moved an application before the District & Sessions Judge, Agra to conciliate all 19 cases pending between the applicant and opposite party no.2, u/s 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act, 1881'). That application was allowed vide order dated 06.07.2024, by which, considering the nature of transaction, all 19 cases were directed to be tried together in two sets in the following manner:

(i) In first set, Complaint Case Nos.15584 of 2022, 15573 of 2022, 15577 of 2022, 15582 of 2022 and 15583 of 2022;

(ii) In second set, Complaint Case Nos.16064 of 2022, 16206 of 2022, 16062 of 2022, 16067 of 2022, 16059 of 2022, 16069 of 2022, 16203 of 2022, 16213 of 2022, 16068 of 2022, 16221 of 2022, 16222 of 2022, 16065 of 2022, 16220 of 2022 and 16066 of 2022.

4. Now, learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that he is unable to arrange sureties for all the cases separately, therefore, he may be permitted to furnish each surety for one set of trial.

5. Learned counsel for opposite party no.2 has vehemently opposed the prayer of the applicant on the ground that the present application is premature, as the applicant could have filed an application before the Court below to permit him to furnish one surety in all the complaint cases.

6. Considering the submission of the parties and on perusal of record, it is not in dispute that first set of 5 cases relates to the transaction from 02.12.2020 to 05.01.2021, while second set of 14 cases relates to the transaction from 21.09.2020 to 27.11.2020.

7. The Apex Court in the case of Re: Expeditious Trial of Cases under Section 138 of the Act, 1881, reported in 2021 SCC Online 325 had observed that cases u/s 138 of the Act, 1881 committed within a period of 12 months by a person could be tried as one trial and it was also directed by the Apex Court that if the cases are pending between the same parties, then service in one case will be deemed to be service in all the cases. Therefore, it is clear from the above judgement of the Apex Court that basic purpose of one trial for multiple offences committed within a period of one year is for expeditious disposal of complaint cases u/s 138 of the Act, 1881. Paragraph no.24 of the said judgement is being quoted as under:

"24. The upshot of the above discussion leads us to the following conclusions:

1) The High Courts are requested to issue practice directions to the Magistrates to record reasons before converting trial of complaints under Section 138 of the Act from summary trial to summons trial.

2) Inquiry shall be conducted on receipt of complaints under Section 138 of the Act to arrive at sufficient grounds to proceed against the accused, when such accused resides beyond the territorial jurisdiction of the court.

3) For the conduct of inquiry under Section 202 of the Code, evidence of witnesses on behalf of the complainant shall be permitted to be taken on affidavit. In suitable cases, the Magistrate can restrict the inquiry to examination of documents without insisting for examination of witnesses.

4) We recommend that suitable amendments be made to the Act for provision of one trial against a person for multiple offences under Section 138 of the Act committed within a period of 12 months, notwithstanding the restriction in Section 219 of the Code.

5) The High Courts are requested to issue practice directions to the Trial Courts to treat service of summons in one complaint under Section 138 forming part of a transaction, as deemed service in respect of all the complaints filed before the same court relating to dishonour of cheques issued as part of the said transaction.

6) Judgments of this Court in Adalat Prasad (supra) and Subramanium Sethuraman (supra) have interpreted the law correctly and we reiterate that there is no inherent power of Trial Courts to review or recall the issue of summons. This does not affect the power of the Trial Court under Section 322 of the Code to revisit the order of issue of process in case it is brought to the court's notice that it lacks jurisdiction to try the complaint.

7) Section 258 of the Code is not applicable to complaints under Section 138 of the Act and findings to the contrary in Meters and Instruments (supra) do not lay down correct law. To conclusively deal with this aspect, amendment to the Act empowering the Trial Courts to reconsider/recall summons in respect of complaints under Section 138 shall be considered by the Committee constituted by an order of this Court dated 10.03.2021.

8) All other points, which have been raised by the Amici Curiae in their preliminary report and written submissions and not considered herein, shall be the subject matter of deliberation by the aforementioned Committee. Any other issue relating to expeditious disposal of complaints under Section 138 of the Act shall also be considered by the Committee."

8. The Apex Court in the case of Hani Nishad @ Mohammad Imran @ Vikky vs. State of U.P.; 2018 LawSuit (SC) 1637 which was also followed by this Court in the case of Shivam Gupta Alias Shubham Alias Lavi Vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko in APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 466 of 2024 decided on 19.01.2024 held that where a person is accused in multiple cases, he can be permitted to furnish one surety for all the cases, considering the financial condition and other factors.

9. Considering the aforesaid circumstances and object of the Act, 1881 for expeditious disposal of trial, this Court directs the Court below to take one surety in the first set comprising Complaint Case Nos.15584 of 2022, 15573 of 2022, 15577 of 2022, 15582 of 2022 and 15583 of 2022 on separate personal bonds in all the cases while releasing him on bail and the surety shall be deemed to be sufficient for all the five cases. Similarly, the Court below will also permit the applicant to take one surety in second set of cases bearing Complaint Case Nos.16064 of 2022, 16206 of 2022, 16062 of 2022, 16067 of 2022, 16059 of 2022, 16069 of 2022, 16203 of 2022, 16213 of 2022, 16068 of 2022, 16221 of 2022, 16222 of 2022, 16065 of 2022, 16220 of 2022 and 16066 of 2022, but on separate personal bonds in each case before releasing him in the above complaint cases on bail.

11. It is made clear that in case the applicant fails to appear before the Court below within a period of 15 days, then he will not be entitled to get the benefit of this order.

12. With the above observations, the present application is disposed of.

Order Date :- 15.1.2025

S.Chaurasia