CRM No. M-21313 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. 1- CRM No. M-21313 of 2009 Date of decision: 5.8.2009 Surjit Singh ...Petitioner Versus Gurcharan Singh ...Respondent 2- CRM No. M-21314 of 2009 Surjit Singh ...Petitioner Versus Gurcharan Singh ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA Present: Mr. H.S. Dhandi, Advocate, for the petitioner. Rajan Gupta, J. This order shall dispose of two Crl. Misc. Petitions i.e. CRM No. M-21313 of 2009 and CRM No. M-21314 of 2009 as common question of law is involved in both these petitions. The petitioner has challenged the order passed by Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Samrala, whereby his application under Section 219 Cr.P.C. for trial of criminal complaints No.19/2 of 2007 titled Gurcharan Singh vs. Surjit Singh and No.20/2 of 2007 titled Gurcharan CRM No. M-21313 of 2009 2 Singh vs. Surjit Singh, was dismissed. The petitioner claimed that the alleged transaction being between the same parties and having arisen within 12 months of each other, the same should be tried at a single trial. Learned counsel has placed reliance on a judgment of Rajasthan High Court reported as Radha Krishan Dang Vs. Indrajeet Bilandi, 2009 (1) Criminal Court Cases 265 (Rajasthan) in support of his contention that both the cases should be tried at single trial. Learned counsel has further submitted that all the witnesses cited in both the cases are same. In response to the query of the Court whether the impugned order was revisable, learned counsel has relied upon judgment of the Apex Court reported as Dhariwal Tobacco Products Limited and others vs. State of Maharashtra and another (2009) 2 Supreme Court Cases 370 and contended that alternate remedy is no bar to entertainment of a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and given careful thought to the facts of the case. A complaint was lodged by one Gurcharan Singh against the petitioner. It was alleged in the complaint that the accused (petitioner) had taken a loan of Rs.10.00 lacs from the complainant. In order to discharge the said liability, he had issued two post dated cheques i.e. 31st December, 2006 bearing Nos.111509 and 111510 for Rs.5.00 lacs each, drawn on State Bank of Patiala, Bharat Nagar Chowk, Ludhiana. Both the cheques were presented for encashment by the CRM No. M-21313 of 2009 3 complainant (respondent herein) with Bank of India Branch Machhiwara but they were dishonoured due to insufficient funds in the account of the petitioner. It appears that the total loan amount was Rs.10.00 lacs. In respect of the said loan, two cheques were issued from the same bank account on the same date. Both the cheques were presented for clearance together. They were also dishonoured on the same day. Under the circumstances, I find that the trial court did not address itself to the issues involved in the case or the same were never addressed before it. The trial court merely referred to Section 219 Cr.P.C. and held that provision thereof is directory in nature and not mandatory. The material question as to the circumstances, under which provision of Section 219 Cr.P.C. is to be invoked, has not been dealt with. Facts such as issuance of cheques on the same day in respect of the same transaction, from the same bank account, with succeeding serial numbers, presentation to the same bank and dishonour on the same date, have not been taken into account. I, thus, deem it fit to set-aside the impugned order, passed by the Magistrate and to remit it back to the same court for decision afresh. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed. The impugned order is set-aside with a direction to the trial court to decide the matter afresh after hearing both the sides. The parties are directed to remain present before the trial court on 7th September, 2009. The counsel for CRM No. M-21313 of 2009 4 the parties will be at liberty to raise their pleas including the judgments, which they may place reliance upon, before the court of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Samrala. (RAJAN GUPTA) JUDGE August 05, 2009 'rajpal'