1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA CRIMINAL REVISION APPLNS. NO. 11/2005 & 13/2005 CRIMINAL REVISION APPLN. NO. 11/2005 Mr. Kiran D. Jangla, Director, M/s. Grand Foundry Ltd., C-40, T.T.C. Industrial area Thane-Belapur Road, Village Pawne, Post K.U. Bazar, Navi Mumbai 400 075. .......... Petitioner. V/s. 1. Puja Ferro Alloys Ltd., through its Director Shri Pankaj Jain, having its registered Office at L-4, Cucolim Industrial Estate, Cuncolim, Salcete, Goa. 2. State of Goa, represented by Public Prosecutor, 3. M/s. Grand Foundry Ltd. 4. Mr. Mukul B. Jangla Director, M/s. Grand Foundry Ltd., 5. Mr. Hiten D. Jangla, Jt. Managing Director, M/s. Grand Foundry Ltd. 6. Mr. Dirajlal B. Jangla, Chairman, M/s. Grand Foundry Ltd., 7. Mr. Nitin B. Jangla Director, M/s. Grand Foundry Ltd., All having Office at 2 C-40, T.T.C. Industrial area Thane-Belapur Road, Village Pawne, Post K.U. Bazar, Navi Mumbai 400 075. .......... Respondents. CRIMINAL REVISION APPLN. NO. 13/2005 Mr. Hiten D. Jangla, Jt. Managing Director, M/s. Grand Foundry Ltd., C-40, T.T.C. Industrial area Thane-Belapur Road, Village Pawne, Post K.U. Bazar, Navi Mumbai 400 075. .......... Petitioner. Versus Puja Ferro Alloys Ltd., through its Director Shri Pankaj Jain, having its registered Office at L-4, Cucolim Industrial Estate, Cuncolim, Salcete, Goa. ........ Respondent. Mr. Arun Bras de Sa, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. M. D. Salkar, Advocate for the respondent No.1 in both the cases. Respondent No. 3 to 7, though served, absent. CORAM : R.M.S. KHANDEPARKAR, J. DATE : 13TH MARCH, 2008. ORAL JUDGMENT : Heard. Both these petitions arise from the orders dated 3 12.6.2002 and 28.3.2005, passed by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Margao in Criminal Case No. 251/OA/NI/02/D. By the impugned orders, the prayer for recall of the process and/or for stay of the proceedings before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, at Margao has been rejected. 2. A few facts relevant for the decision are that the respondents herein filed a complaint under Section 138, read with 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act against the petitioners on the allegation of dishonour of cheque No.030352 drawn on Bank of India, C.P. Tank Branch, Mumbai for Rs.11,46,715/- dated 12.12.2001. Based on the said complaint, a process came to be issued by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Margao against the petitioner on 12.6.02. Therefore, the issuance of process was subjected to a revision application before the Sessions Court, which came to be dismissed on 15.1.03. The petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. before this Court was also dismissed on 14.8.03 while granting liberty to the petitioner to file a suitable application for recall of the process. By the impugned order, such an application which was filed by the petitioners came to be dismissed. Hence, the present revision applications. Simultaneously and as soon as the petitioners had issued a statutory notice under Section 138 of the Act, prior to filing of the complaint, a criminal complaint came to be filed before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thane, complaining that the cheque in question, based on 4 which 138 proceedings have been initiated by the respondents, was a forged cheque and based on the said complaint, the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thane directed the Turbhe Police to register an FIR and to investigate into the matter. The directions in that regard were issued under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. Consequent to the said directions, FIR registered and investigation was conducted and the Police at Turbhe-Thane have filed a charge-sheet against the respondents herein in relation to the said cheque in question. 3. Drawing my attention to Section 210 Cr.P.C., the learned Advocate appearing for the petitioners submitted that the two proceedings, one in Margao Court and the another before the Thane Court relate to the same document i.e. the cheque in question, while in one case, the respondents have claimed the amount to be due and payable to the respondents by the petitioners. On the strength of the said document ie. the cheque, while in another case, the petitioners have contended that the said cheque was forged one and, therefore, they have no obligation to pay any amount to the respondents. Since the conflicting complaints in relation to the same document having been filed in the two different Courts, a possibility of two contradictory judgments cannot be ruled out as it will all depend upon the evidence to be led by the parties in each of the cases. In the circumstances, according to the petitioners, the proceedings before the Magisterial Court in 5 Margao should be proceeded with and no judgment should be pronounced as the liability of the petitioners would depend upon the authenticity of the documents which will be decided in the proceedings pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thane. The learned Advocate for the respondent has fairly submitted that the liability to pay the amount in terms of the said cheque of the petitioners to the respondent would, obviously, depend upon the findings to be arrived at by the Court in Thane as regards the authenticity of the document and, therefore, it would be appropriate to direct the Judicial Magistrate, First Class at Margao not to pronounce the judgment in the matter pending before him till disposal of the proceedings in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thane. 4. In the circumstances, therefore, by consent, though the proceedings in Criminal Case No. 251/OA/NI/02/D are allowed to proceed with in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, F.C. Margao, it is directed that no judgment in the said case should be passed till and until the final disposal of the proceedings in the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thane arising out of the complaint filed by the petitioners in relation to the cheque in question. As no other point is canvassed in the matter, with the above observations, the revisions are disposed of. Rule made absolute in the above terms. No order as to costs. Interim relief, stands vacated. 6 R.M.S. KHANDEPARKAR, J. ssm.