1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Criminal Application [APL] No. 370 of 2011 (Mrs. Pournima W/o. Kishor Pendke Vs. Pradeep S/o. Gangadhar Beerewar) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Appearances, Courts orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders and Registrar’s orders. Mr. P. R. Puri, Advocate for the applicant. Mr. M. Anilkumar with Mr. Deepak Gupta, Adv. for the respondent sole. CORAM : P. V. HARDAS, J. DATE : 25 th NOVEMBER, 2011. This application has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and under Article 227 of the Constitution of India praying for quashing and setting aside Summary Criminal Complaint No. 2884/2009 and also praying for quashing and setting aside an order passed by the learned 10th Judicial Magistrate First Class, Chandrapur, in the aforesaid complaint, dated 14/06/2011, issuing the bailable warrant against the applicant. 02] Such of the facts, as are necessary for the decision of this application, may briefly be stated thus : Summary Criminal Complaint No. 2884/2009 had been filed by the respondent against the present applicant alleging therein that the amount 2 as stated in the cheque was due and payable to the respondent and accordingly a cheque had been received, which came to be dishonoured. The number of the cheque is 0960737, dated 30/06/2009, drawn on the HDFC Bank. Accordingly, a notice had been issued and the prosecution had been instituted. It appears that thereafter cheque no. 384350 drawn on the ICICI Bank, Nagpur Branch, for an amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- had been tendered to the respondent, which was accepted by the respondent towards discharge of liability under cheque no. 0960737. It appears that the subsequent cheque i.e. cheque no. 384350 was also dishonoured and ultimately the respondent instituted the second prosecution. It appears that the applicant, who was accused in both the cases, filed Criminal Application No. 205/2011 in this Court with a specific prayer therein that the record of Summary Criminal Complaint no. 2884/2009 be called for and this Court be pleased to quash and set aside the same. The order dated 07/03/2011 was also impugned in the said application, which was an order issuing process to the applicant. Various grounds had been urged in Criminal Application No. 205/2011 including the facts that the first prosecution was not maintainable and the respondent had himself rescinded the contract and 3 there was no legal enforceable debt or liability. 03] The learned Single Judge of this Court, who had heard Criminal Application No. 205/2011, directed issuance of notice to the respondent. I may make a reference to few orders passed in that application. By order dated 06/06/2011, the learned Single Judge of this Court, who had heard Criminal Application No. 205/2011 directed the learned counsel representing the respondent to take instructions from the respondent as to whether he would choose to proceed against the present applicant on the basis of dishonour of the second cheque or on the basis of dishonour of the first cheque. Accordingly, it appears that the respondent filed a Pursis stating that he had withdrawn the Criminal Complaint No. 2388/2010, on 28/06/2010. The aforesaid Criminal Complaint No. 2388/2010 was in respect of the subsequent cheque. The learned Single Judge of this Court ultimately passed an order on 23rd June, 2011 that in the light of the fact that the prosecution in respect of the second cheque was withdrawn, the Court directed the complaint to proceed further in accordance with law without being influenced by the observations made by this Court. Ultimately, the learned Single Judge of this 4 Court by an order dated 30/06/2011 recorded that a praecipe was filed by the respondent withdrawing Criminal Complaint No. 2388/2010. The learned Single Judge further directed that, ‘the other Criminal Case i.e. Summary Cri. Case No. 2884/2009 will proceed further in accordance with law, without being influenced by the observations made by this Court on 23/06/2011’. The Court ultimately disposed of the Criminal Application No. 205/2011. Principally, the relief, which the applicant had prayed for i.e of quashing of Summary Criminal Complaint No. 2884/2009 stood denied to the applicant. The applicant, instead of challenging the aforesaid order of the learned Single Judge, disposing of the application filed as Criminal Application No. 205/2011, has filed the present application raising identical grounds as well as an identical relief of quashing of Summary Criminal Complaint No. 2884/2009. Additionally, the applicant had prayed for quashing of the order of the trial Court issuing bailable warrant against the applicant. Filing of this application, namely, Criminal Application No. 370/2011 is an absolute abuse of the process of the Court, particularly in the light of the fact that the principal relief stood denied to the applicant in the earlier proceedings filed by him. Merely, because 5 the applicant has made a prayer for quashing of order issuing bailable warrant, this application cannot be said not to be amounting to an abuse of process of the Court. A party, against whom an order has been passed, cannot file subsequent proceedings praying for the same relief. On this count alone, therefore, I am not inclined to interfere. 04] The learned counsel for the applicant has urged before me that the cause of action in respect of the first complaint stood eclipsed by filing of the second criminal compliant as the cheque had been issued subsequently towards the discharge of the liability, which was stated in the first cheque. 05] It is also urged before me that the contract was rescinded by the respondent and as per the terms of the contract, the applicant cannot be said to be legally liable to pay any debt. In other words, according to the applicant, there is no legally enforceable debt. All these grounds were parts of the grounds raised by the applicant in Criminal Complaint No. 205/2011. This Court had declined to grant any relief to the present applicant. In the light of that fact and in the light of the fact that the learned Single 6 Judge has directed the trial to proceed in accordance with law, this application i.e. Criminal Application No. 370/2011 is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed as amounting to abuse of process of law. I am, therefore, not inclined to entertain the aforesaid submissions of the learned counsel for the applicant as they stood repelled by the order of this Court dated 30/06/2011 in Criminal Application No. 205/2011. 06] The present application, therefore, which is sans merit is liable to be dismissed. This Court has already directed the Criminal Prosecution i.e. Summary Criminal Complaint No. 2884/2009 to proceed in accordance with law and, therefore, I refrain from making similar observations. 07] The application, therefore, which is devoid of any merit, is summarily dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE *Sdw