Krishna Kumar Mehta vs Padam Chand Mehta
2021 Latest Caselaw 17298 Raj

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 6281/2021

Krishna Kumar Mehta S/o Sh. Gopal Mal Mehta, Aged About 63 Years, Resident of 202, Siddha Basil, Shiv Marg, Bani Park, Jaipur-16.

----Petitioner Versus Padam Chand Mehta S/o Sh. Mohanlal Mehta, Resident of 13, Solankiya Bas, Dist. Pali.

                                                                  ----Respondent


For Petitioner(s)         :     Mr. Suresh Kumbhat
                                Mr. Sheetal Kumbhat
For Respondent(s)         :     Mr. M. S. Bhati, PP



         HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR

                                     Order

20/11/2021

The present petition has been filed against the order dated

21.10.2021 whereby, the application preferred by the petitioner

under Section 386 (b)(i) read with Section 201 of Cr.P.C. has been

rejected.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that brief facts of

the case are that the petitioner gave three cheques to the

complainant, the details of which are reproduced as below:-

S.No.            Date                Cheque No.                  Amount
  1.           30.08.2012                275354                   5,00,000/-
  2.           29.08.2012                275355                  10,00,000/-
  3.           28.08.2012                275356                  10,00,000/-

       Since   the   cheques       were       dishonoured,         therefore,   the

complainant filed the complaint for dishonour of the cheque

no.275356 of Rs.10,00,000/-(Rupees: Ten Lakhs only) dated

(2 of 5) [CRLMP-6281/2021]

28.08.2012 and proceeded against the petitioner by way of filing a

complaint in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No.4,

Jaipur and for rest of the two cheques, the complaint for

dishonour of the same was filed at Pali. Both the complaints were

decided by the respective trial courts vide judgments dated

03.08.2019 & 19.11.2019 respectively.

At the court at Pali, the appeal was preferred on 13.12.2019

against the judgment dated 19.11.2019. During the pendency of

the appeal, the petitioner preferred an application under 386 (b)(i)

read with Section 201 of Cr.P.C. for transfer of the case to the

court at Jaipur, where the appeal against the order dated

03.08.2019 is pending consideration.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in order to

avoid the two different judgments, the application was preferred

before the Appellate Court but the same has been erroneously

rejected. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the

judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Damodar

S. Prabhu Vs. Sayed Babalal H. being Criminal Appeal

No.963/2010 decided on 03.05.2010 reported in 2010(5)

SCC 663.

I have considered the submissions made at the Bar and gone

through the order dated 21.10.2021.

Briefly the facts necessary to be noted are that the

complaints were preferred before the courts at Jaipur and Pali in

the year 2012 and after the trial, the trial court passed the orders

of conviction vide judgments dated 03.08.2019 and 19.11.2019

respectively.

In these circumstances, the appeals were preferred before

the Appellate Courts both at Jaipur and Pali. It is also noted that

(3 of 5) [CRLMP-6281/2021]

before the trial court at Pali or Jaipur, no application under Section

386 (b)(i) read with Section 201 Cr.P.C. was filed for transferring

of the cases and consolidating the same at one place. The

contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the

appeals arising out of the two orders passed by the learned Trial

Court are pending consideration at Pali and Jaipur should be

consolidated is noted to be rejected on the ground that even the

appeal pending before the Pali court was filed in the year 2019

and after two years, this application has been preferred which in

the opinion of this Court appears to be an after thought just for

the purpose of delaying the disposal of appeals.

Learned Trial Court has dealt with the arguments by giving

the correct reasons for dismissal of the application. For brevity,

para 13 of the said order is reproduced hereunder:-

"13- ekuuh; loksZPp U;k;ky; us nkeksnj ,l izHkq cuke lS;n ckckyky ,p U;kf;d n`'Vkar esa tks fl)kar izfrikfnr fd;k gS fd ,d gh laO;ogkj ls lacaf/kr pSdksa ds ekeyksa esa ifjokj ,d gh U;k;ky; esa lafLFkr fd;s tkus pkfg, ftldk ewy mís"; ;g gS fd vfHk;qDr dks fHkUu fHkUu U;k;ky;ksa esa mifLFkr gksus esa vuko";d dfBukbZ;ksa dk lkeuk ugha djuk iM+saA ijUrq gLrxr izdj.k esa fopkj.k iw.kZ gksdj izdj.k dk fuLrkj.k Hkh gks pqdk gS vkSj vc vihy gh yafcr gSA iwoZ esa vihykFkhZ dh vksj ls ,slk dksbZ vkosnu fopkj.k U;k;ky; esa ;k l{ke vf/kdkfjrk okys U;k;ky; esa izLrqr ugha fd;k gS ,oa vc ;g izkFkZuk i= dsoy ek= vihy dks foyafcr djus ds vk"k; ls izLrqr fd;k tkuk izrhr gksrk gSA vihykFkhZ }kjk iwoZ esa Hkh vihy ds yafcr jgus ds njfe;ku ,d izkFkZuk i= varxZr /kkjk 340 naizla- izLrqr dj izn"kZ 10 ij vihykFkhZ ds dwV jfpr gLrk{kj fd;k tkuk crkrs gq, izLrqr fd;k Fkk tcfd fopkj.k U;k;ky; esa nkSjkus fopkj.k vihykFkhZ us izn"kZ 10 jlhn ij mlds QthZ gLrk{kj gksus ds laca/k esa vkosnu djrs gq, ,Q,l,y tkap djok;s tkus gsrq fuosnu ugha fd;k FkkA bl izdkj vihykFkhZ }kjk ckj ckj vuko";d izkFkZuk i= izLrqr djuk ;g n"kkZrk gS fd ,slk izrhr gksrk gS fd vihykFkhZ tku cw>dj izdj.k foyafcr djus ds vk"k; ls ckj ckj vkosnu izLrqr dj vihy dks yafcr djus dk iz;kl dj jgk gSA vr% vihykFkhZ dh vksj ls izLrqr izkFkZuk i= dkWLV ij vLohdkj fd;s tkus ;ksX; gSA"

Section 201 of Cr.P.C are read as under:-

"Procedure by Magistrate not competent to take cognizance of the case. If the complaint is made to a Magistrate who is not competent to take cognizance of the offence, he shall,-

(4 of 5) [CRLMP-6281/2021]

(a) if the complaint is in writing, return it for presentation to the proper court with an endorsement to that effect;

(b) if the complaint is not in writing, direct the complainant to the proper court."

The purpose of Section 201 Cr.P.C. is that if at the initial

stage, a fact of multiple proceedings is brought before the

competent court and if one court has started the proceedings then

to avoid the multiplicity of proceedings and different orders, an

application is required to be made. Admittedly, in the present case

such application was not made at any stage before the trial court.

Since the trial courts at Pali and Jaipur have already passed

the judgment of conviction on the complaints preferred, the

judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Damodar S.

Prabhu Vs. Sayed Babalal H. (Supra) relied upon by the

counsel for the petitioner is not applicable in the facts of the

present case.

Since no application under Section 201 Cr.P.C. has been

preferred by the petitioner after the receipt of the notices of the

complaint then it can be presumed that the petitioner was not

desirous of getting the complaints transferred at one place. Since

the petitioner has already suffered two conviction orders at

different places, this Court is of the view that at the appellate

stage, the application under Section 386 (b)(i) read with Section

201 Cr.P.C. is not required to be entertained for delaying the

proceedings pending before the respective courts as two years

have already lapsed after filing of the appeal before the Appellate

Court.

(5 of 5) [CRLMP-6281/2021]

In view of the discussions made, the petition is bereft of

merit and the same is hereby dismissed.

However, any observation made in this order shall not

prejudice the cases pending before the Appellate Court.

(VINIT KUMAR MATHUR),J 235-Shahenshah/SunilS/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)