IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No.65808-M of 2006 Date of decision: 8th April, 2010 N.R. Mehtani and others … Petitioners Versus Devinder Kumar and another … Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA Present: Mr. H.N. Mehtani, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Yogesh Goyal, Advocate for respondent No.1. Mr. J.S. Bhullar, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab for respondent No.2. KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. (ORAL) Present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. praying that complaint dated 3rd May, 2006 (Annexure P-15) filed by Devinder Kumar respondent No.1 against the petitioners under Section 420, 406, 506 read with Section 120-B IPC be quashed along with the summoning order (Annexure P-16) passed by the Court of Judicial Magistrate (1st Class), Ludhiana on 26th July, 2006. A perusal of the allegations leveled in the complaint reveals that the complainant had issued two cheques bearing No.388926 and 388927. According to complainant respondent No.1, in lieu of these cheques, accused petitioner had received payment and had falsely filed complaints under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as, ‘the Act’). The averments made in following Criminal Misc. No.65808-M of 2006 paras of the impugned complaint (Annexure P-15) are required to be noticed and the same read as under: “6. That on 04.11.2004 in the presence of one Mr.Dev Raj Jain s/o Sh.Sham Lal Jain, r/o Harcharan Nagar, Near Shingar Cinema, Ludhiana, the accused No.1 & 2 informed the complainant that the above said two cheques bearing numbers 388926 and 388927 had been misplaced somewhere. They also requested the complainant to issue new cheques of short dates in lieu of the above said purportedly lost cheques. 7. That the complainant trusted their wording and upon an assurance of returning the lost cheques to the complainant if & when found, he issued, in the presence of Mr.Dev Raj Jain, to the accused No.1 & 2 two new cheques bearing numbers 388928 dated 08.11.2004 for Rs.165600/- and cheque No.388929 dated 10.11.2004 for Rs.75400/- in lieu of the purportedly lost cheques. The detail of the cheques is given in para 4 above. 8. That the complainant also wrote one letter on 10.11.2004 to his bankers Punjab National Bank, Chaura Bazar, Ludhiana to stop payment of the cheques No.388926 and 388927, which the bank acknowledged the same day. The bank of the complainant also debited Rs.60/- as “stop- payment charges” for each cheque separately in complainant’s account on 10.11.2004. Photocopies of the letters are enclosed. xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx 11. That with malafide intention of cheating the complainant, and in a criminal conspiracy with each other, all the above said accused presented the above mentioned two cheques bearing numbers 388926 and 388927 in their bank on 10.05.2005. It is pertinent to mention here that these are the same cheques which the accused had claimed to have lost and the payment of which had been got stopped in the bank by the complainant, and in lieu of which fresh cheques bearing numbers 388928 and 388929 of the same amount 2 Criminal Misc. No.65808-M of 2006 respectively had been issued and had been already cleared by the bank.” These cheques were not encashed because the complainant had stopped the payment. For this act of the complainant, the accused petitioner No.3 had instituted two separate complaints for both the cheques under Section 138 of the Act against the complainant in the Court of Judicial Magistrate (1st Class), Chandigarh, copies of which have been annexed with the present petition as Annexure P-8 and P-10 respectively. In these complaints, the complainant was summoned to stand trial by the Court of Mr.R.K. Sharma, Judicial Magistrate (1st Class), Chandigarh on 14th July, 2006 and by the Court of Mr.R.K. Singla, Judicial Magistrate (1st Class), Chandigarh on 10th September, 2005. What is stated in the impugned complaint, is the defence of the complainant in the complaints filed against him under Section 138 of the Act by accused No.3 and vice-versa complaints filed under Section 138 of the Act is defence of accused in impugned complaint (Annexure P- 15). Therefore, if these complaints are tried at different places, a judicial embarrassment may be caused in parallel proceedings, as contradictory findings may emerge. Therefore, to ward off such a situation, criminal complaint (Annexure P-15) filed by respondent No.1 is transferred from the Court of Judicial Magistrate (1st Class), Ludhiana to Chandigarh. The learned Sessions Judge, Chandigarh shall entrust the complaint so transferred along with the other two complaints at Annexure P-8 and P-10 to one Court of Judicial Magistrate (1st Class) at Chandigarh, which shall try all the three complaints separately but simultaneously. 3 Criminal Misc. No.65808-M of 2006 The impugned complaint (Annexure P-15) was instituted in the year 2006. Taking into consideration long pendency of the litigation, personal appearance of the petitioners before the trial Court is exempted, subject to their filing an undertaking that they shall cause their appearance as and when required by the trial Court. They shall also undertake that the evidence, if any, recorded in their absence but in the presence of their counsel, shall be binding upon them. The trial Court may incorporate any other condition in the undertaking to be furnished by the accused. With the observations made above, present petition is disposed of. [KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA] JUDGE April 8, 2010 rps 4