Jharkhand High Court
Dinesh Jalan vs The State Of Jharkhand on 8 January, 2024
Author: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi
Bench: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi
1 Cr.M.P. No. 617 of 2018
With
Cr.M.P. No. 620 of 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr.M.P. No. 617 of 2018
With
Cr.M.P. No. 620 of 2018
Dinesh Jalan ... Petitioner
-Versus-
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Jaggu Mal @ Jagdish Roy ... Opposite Parties
-----
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
-----
For the Petitioner : Mrs. Jasvindar Mazumdar, Advocate (In both cases)
Ms. Anushka Sharma, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Sanjay Kumar Srivastava, A.P.P. (In Cr.M.P.-617/18)
Mr. Rajesh Kumar, A.P.P. (In Cr.M.P.-620/18)
For O.P. No.2 : Mrs. Nitu Sinha, Advocate (In both cases)
-----
07/08.01.2024 In both the petitions, commons question of facts and laws are
involved and that is why, both the petitions have been heard together with
consent of the parties.
2. Heard Mrs. Jasvindar Mazumdar, learned counsel for the petitioner,
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Srivastava and Mr. Rajesh Kumar, learned counsel for the
State and Mrs. Nitu Sinha, learned counsel for opposite party no.2.
3. Mrs. Nitu Sinha, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 at the outset
submits that during the pendency of these petitions, opposite party no.2
has left for his heavenly abode and in both the cases, the complainant is
same.
4. In Cr.M.P. No.617 of 2018, the prayer is made for quashing the order
dated 14.09.2017 passed by the learned Principal District and Sessions
Judge, Pakur in Criminal Revision No.24 of 2016, whereby, he has been
pleased to confirm the order dated 27.08.2016 passed by the learned
S.D.J.M., Pakur in P.C.R. Case No.64 of 2006. The prayer is also made for
quashing the order dated 27.08.2016 passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Pakur
With
in P.C.R. Case No.64 of 2006.
5. P.C.R. Case No.64 of 2006 was filed alleging therein that the
complainant and the accused/petitioner on behalf of the company, namely,
K.J. Mining Ltd. had entered upon an indenture of sale/transfer with the
complainant for purchasing the assets of M/s Talreza Stone works at the
total cost of Rs.15 Lakhs only and some extra parts were also purchased
additionally at a total cost of Rs.3 Lakhs only on 20.05.2003. It was further
alleged by the complainant that sale of spare parts was not mentioned in
the indenture of sale/transfer deed as it was the personal assets of the
complainant and not to M/s Talreza Stone Works. The accused person
therefore granted post dated cheques dated 01.11.2005 and 03.01.2006
amounting to Rs.1,25,000/- and Rs.25,000/- respectively over Indian
Overseas Bank, Kolkata. The said cheque was delivered to the complainant
at Pakur and it was deposited at SBI Bazar Branch, Pakur on 17.01.2006
and the same was sent to Indian Overseas Bank, Kolkata for collection of
the cheque amount, but the cheque was bounced. Thereafter on
15.02.2006, notice was sent according to N.I. Act, but in spite of that, the
payment was not made and, therefore, the complaint case was filed against
the petitioner.
6. In Cr.M.P. No.620 of 2018, the prayer is made for quashing the order
dated 13.09.2017 passed by the learned Principal District and Sessions
Judge-1, Pakur in Criminal Revision No.23 of 2016, whereby, he has been
pleased to confirm the order dated 27.08.2016 passed by the learned
S.D.J.M., Pakur in P.C.R. Case No.278 of 2005. The prayer is also made for
quashing the order dated 27.08.2016 passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Pakur
With
in P.C.R. Case No.278 of 2005.
7. P.C.R. Case No.278 of 2005 was filed alleging therein that the
complainant and the accused/petitioner on behalf of the company, namely,
K.J. Mining Ltd. and Minerals (P) Ltd. had entered upon an indenture of
sale/transfer with the complainant for purchasing the assets of M/s Talreza
Stone works at the total cost of Rs.15 Lakhs only and some extra parts were
also purchased additionally at a total cost of Rs.3 Lakhs only on 20.05.2003.
It was further alleged by the complainant that sale of spare parts was not
mentioned in the indenture of sale/transfer deed as it was the personal
assets of the complainant and not to M/s Talreza Stone Works. The accused
person therefore granted post dated cheque dated 01.05.2005 amounting
to Rs.1,25,000/- over Indian Overseas Bank, Kolkata. The said cheque was
delivered to the complainant at Pakur and it was deposited at SBI Bazar
Branch, Pakur on 22.07.2005 and the same was sent to Indian Overseas
Bank, Kolkata for collection of the cheque amount, but the cheque was
bounced. Thereafter on 10.08.2005, notice was sent according to N.I. Act,
but in spite of that, the payment was not made and, therefore, the
complaint case was filed against the petitioner.
8. Mrs. Mazumdar, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner filed a petition before the learned Court about maintainability of
the case at Pakur on the ground of jurisdiction, which was rejected and
pursuant to that, the petitioner moved before this Court in Cr.M.P. No.617 of
2011 and vide judgment 12.03.2012, the said petition was dismissed and
pursuant to that, the petitioner moved before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.4863/2013, which was also dismissed by
With
the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 01.07.2013 with observation that the
petitioner may raise all the points before the learned S.D.J.M., Pakur as the
case was at an advanced stage. She submits that pursuant to that, the
petitioner filed a petition before the learned Court raising the objection that
the company is not the accused and in view of that the case is arising under
Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and, therefore, the prayer
was made to dismiss the complaint case in absence of the company and
cheque is issued. She also submits that the learned Trial Court has rejected
the said petition and the learned Revisional Court has further rejected the
revision petition in view of that, the case of interference is made out by this
Court. She submits that case of the petitioner is covered in view of the
judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Aneeta
Hada v. Godfather Travels & Tours (P) Ltd. , reported in (2012) 5
SCC 661.
9. The said argument is adopted by Mrs. Mazumdar, learned counsel for
the petitioner in Cr.M.P. No.620 of 2018 and complaint case, criminal
revision and the orders passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the
learned Revisional Court are different. In this case, Cr.M.P. No.608 of 2011
was filed by the petitioner before this Court, which was dismissed vide
judgment dated 12.03.2012 and the same was challenged before the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.3029/2013,
which was decided on 22.04.2013, wherein, similar observation was made,
which has been recorded in the earlier submission of Mrs. Mazumdar. On
the above grounds, she submits that the entire criminal proceeding may
kindly be quashed.
With
10. The said argument is being resisted by Mrs. Nitu Singh, learned
counsel for opposite party no.2 on the ground that in both the cases, the
evidence was already closed and the case has been fixed for final argument
and, thereafter, the present petitions have been filed. These aspects of the
matter have been considered by the learned Trial Court as well as the
Revisional Court and, thereafter, the present petitions have been filed. She
further submits that the allegations are not against the company. The
allegations are against the accused in individual capacity. She submits that
the case relied by the learned counsel for the petitioner is not attracted.
11. Mr. Srivastava and Mr. Kumar, learned counsel for the State submit
that at belated stage when the argument is concluded, that point may not
be a ground for quashing of the entire criminal proceeding.
12. The Court has gone through the contents of the complaint cases and
finds that in paragraph 3, it has been alleged that regarding sale and spare
parts, it was not mentioned in the indenture of sale/transfer deed as it was
the personal assets of the complainant and not to M/s Talreza Stone Works.
Further, if such an allegation was there, it is not a case of interference on
the ground that the company is not made an accused in the present cases.
The Court finds that for correct appreciation of issuance of cheques, even
photo copy of the cheque is not on the record and the Court is not in a
position to appreciate that fact, who is the signatory of the said cheque.
13. In both the cases, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has not interfered
considering that the evidence was already closed and the case was fixed for
final argument and in view of that, liberty was provided to the petitioner to
raise all the points before the learned Trial Court.
With
14. Further, the petitioner chosen to file separate petition, which suggests
that even observation of the Hon'ble Supreme Court was not taken care of
by the petitioner and he has not argued the matter on merit making all the
points, as has been observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in final trial as
it was fixed for argument. The allegations are that in separate capacity,
certain transaction was there and in view of that, the judgment relied by the
learned counsel for the petitioner in the case of Aneeta Hada (supra) is not
attracted.
15. The learned Revisional Court has considered every aspects of the
matter and by a well reasoned order, the learned Revisional Court has been
pleased to dismiss the revision petitions. It is well settled if injustice is not
done, in the garb of Section 482 Cr.P.C., second revision is not maintainable.
16. In view of the above facts, reasons and analysis, no case of
interference is made out. Accordingly, these petitions are dismissed.
17. Interim order, if any granted by this Court, is vacated.
(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)
Ajay/
