Criminal Revision regarding the order for simultaneous trial of two cheque dishonor cases. The High Court upheld the Trial Court's order, finding the transactions interlinked and requiring joint appreciation of evidence to prevent conflicting judgments.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
RESERVED ON : 28.07.2021
PRONOUNCED ON : 23.09.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE RMT.TEEKAA RAMAN
Crl.R.C.No.422 of 2018
M/s.R.K.R.Gold Bullion Private Limited,
represented by its Chairman cum Managing Director,
S.V.Sreenivasan,
IInd Floor,
No.569/2, Raja Street,
Coimbatore – 1. ... Petitioner/1
... Petitioner/1st Respondent
Vs.
1.Muthusamy
... 1st Respondent/Petitioner
2.M/s.Citra Fuels Limited,
Represented by its Chairman/Managing Director,
Mr.John Milton,
Kunnampuram – Building,
Villonni – Post,
Arpookkara,
Kottayam – 686 008.
3.M.Gnanalingam ... Respondents 2 & 3/Respondents 2 & 3
Prayer: This Criminal Revision Case has been filed under Section
397 read with Section 401 of Cr.P.C., to set aside the order
dated 09.11.2017, made in Tr.C.M.P.No.848 of 2015 on the file of
the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Coimbatore.
For Petitioner: Mr.K.S.Karthik Raja
For R1: Mr.C.R.Prasannan
For R2 & R3: No appearance
JUDGMENT
(The case has been heard through Video Conference)
This Criminal Revision Case is filed by the revision
petitioner/complainant in C.C.No.41 of 2015, on the file of the
Fast Track Court, Coimbatore, against the respondents herein for
the offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.
2.The revision petitioner herein has filed a case in
C.C.No.41 of 2015, on the file of the Fast Track Court,
Coimbatore, against the first respondent herein. While the
first respondent herein has filed a case in C.C.No.289 of 2015,
before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.V, Coimbatore, against
the respondents 2 and 3 herein and another, for the dishonour of
cheque No.015019, for an amount of Rs.94,00,000/-.
3.During the pendency of trial of the respective cases,
the first respondent herein/complainant in C.C.No.289 of 2015,
has filed a petition in Tr.C.M.P.No.848 of 2015, before the
learned Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Coimbatore, to transfer
the said C.C.No.289 of 2015, to the file of the learned Judicial
Magistrate, Fast Track Court No.II, Coimbatore, for
simultaneous trial along with C.C.No.41 of 2015. The learned
Chief Judicial Magistrate has come to the conclusion that the
issue arising in the above two cases viz., C.C.No.41 of 2015 and
C.C.No. 289 of 2015 are interdependent. Accordingly, ordered
for simultaneous trial and hence, the Criminal Revision Case.
4.Heard the respective learned counsels and perused the
materials placed on record.
5.The learned counsel for the revision petitioner would
contend that there is no necessity for the simultaneous trial
since the respondents 2 and 3 herein are no way connected to the
cheque issued by the first respondent herein. He would further
contend that the finding rendered by the learned Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Coimbatore, is not based upon the records.
6.Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents
would contend that the simultaneous trial alone will resolve the
issue and that is the reason why the first respondent herein,
who is the complainant in C.C.No.289/2015, has sought for
transfer and simultaneous trial.
7.The reason assigned in the prayer for simultaneous
trial of two cases is that the revision petitioner herein is the
buyer; the second respondent herein is the seller; the third
respondent herein is a prospective purchaser; while the first
respondent herein is an intermediator, who is standing guarantee
for the transaction.
8.The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Coimbatore, has
ordered for simultaneous trial in C.C.No.289 of 2015, on the
file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.V, Coimbatore, along
with C.C.No.41 of 2015, on the file of the learned Judicial
Magistrate Fast Track Court No.I, Coimbatore. In one case the
first respondent herein is the accused and in another case the
second respondent herein is the private complainant.
9.After perusing certain Email communications between the
parties and Ex.P9/statement of accounts of the first respondent
herein for the period from 01.11.2013 to 31.12.2013, viz., Ex.P9
was marked by way of consent and it also reveals that the
amounts transacted with Citra Fuels Ltd and RJR Gold Bullions
Private Limited, who are parties in both the cases and from
26.11.2013 to 30.11.2013, which reveals that there may be nexus
between the petitioner and the respondents with regard to both
the cases and hence, the trial Court has rightly come to the
conclusion that both the cases ought to be tried simultaneously
for having a better appreciation and fair adjudication.
10(a).The Judgment reported in CDJ 2013 MHC 5598 –
[T.Selvakumar Vs. The State represented by the Inspector of
Police, Chennai], wherein this Court has held as follows:
“25. Explaining the need to try the counter-cases
by one and the same judge and the benefit of it, in
SUDHIR Vs. STATE of M.P, [2001 (2) SCC 688], the Hon'ble
Supreme Court observed as under:
“8.It is a salutary practice, when two criminal
cases relate to the same incident, they are tried and
disposed of by the same court by pronouncing judgments on
the same day. Such two different versions of the same
incident resulting in two criminal cases are
compendiously called “case and counter-case” by some High
Courts and “cross cases” by some other High Courts.”
“The practical reasons for adopting a procedure
that such cross-cases shall be tried by the same court,
can be summarised thus: (1) It saves off the danger of an
accused being convicted before his whole case is before
the Court. (2) It deters conflicting judgments being
delivered upon similar facts. (3) In reality the case and
the counter-case are, to all intents and purposes,
different or conflicting versions of one incident.”
26.In NATHI LAL V. STATE OF U.P. [1990 SCC 145],
as regards trial of counter-cases, the Hon'ble Apex Court
advocated the following procedure:
“We think that the fair procedure to adopt in a
matter like the present where there are cross-cases, is
to direct that the same learned Judge must try both the
cross-cases one after the other. After the recording of
evidence in one case is completed, he must hear the
arguments but he must reserve the judgment. Thereafter,
he must proceed to hear the cross-case and after
recording all the evidence he must hear the arguments but
reserve the judgment in that case. The same learned
Judge must thereafter dispose of the matters by two
separate judgments. In deciding each of the cases, he
can rely only on the evidence recorded in that particular
case. The evidence recorded in the cross-case cannot be
looked into. Nor can the judge be influenced by whatever
is argues in the cross-case. Each case must be decided
on the basis of the evidence which has been placed on
record in that particular case without being influenced
in any manner by the evidence or arguments urged in the
cross-case. But both the judgments must be pronounced by
the same learned Judge one after the other.”
10(b).Further, I had an occasion to consider a similar
situation in Crl.O.P.No.2715 of 2014 and M.P.No.1 of 2014, dated
17.08.2017, wherein, it was held as follows:
“On a perusal of the F.I.R in both the cases,
this Court finds that this is not a case and case-in-
counter. However, incident in both the cases are alleged
to have taken place on 20.06.2012 and parties are none
other than the husband and wife and their in-laws and
therefore, for appreciation of evidence let in by the
both the cases, simultaneous trial will alone meet the
ends of justice, otherwise over-all view of the case and
the inter-linked disputes between the both the parties
cannot be elicited and hence, this Court is of the
considered view that through a joint trial is not
possible, since both the cases are not the case and
case-in-counter, however, as the both the cases are
pending before the same learned Judicial Magistrate-I,
Virudhachalam, this Court is of the considered view that
simultaneoustrialwillmeettheendsof
justice.”(emphasis supplied)
11(a).After perusing of the pleadings and having the
arguments, this Court finds that the issue that has to be
determined in both the cases is that the inter mediator and the
parties are in a clear cut issue, which happens to be related to
one another and arising out of the same business transaction.
11(b).When payment has been made by cheque to “A” party,
on behalf of “B” party by as a guarantor viz., “C” party, and in
respect of that amount “B” Party had issued cheque for the “C”
party. The first cheuqe issued by the “C” party (middle man)
become the basis of legally enforcible debt of [“B” party]
towards “C” party is just and necessary that to avoid
conflicting decision, the simultaneous trial was rightly ordered
by the Trial Court. It is needless to say that it is not a
joint trial. the transaction between the parties is arising from
the business transaction over two different parties and that the
first respondent herein, who is the mediator/middle man for
purchase of gold from the second and third respondents herein,
while the revision petitioner herein is the purchaser of the
gold. though the transactions are common and parties to the
transaction are common but the cheques were different. In
order to appreciate nature of the transaction between the
parties which is appeared to be triangular in contest and
interrelated this Court finds that the order passed by the
learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Coimbatore, does not suffer
from any illegality or irregularity warranting interference.
12.In this view of the matter, this Criminal Revision
Case stands dismissed and the learned Judicial Magistrate, Fast
Track Court No.I, Coimbatore, shall to take the case on file as
per the order passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Coimbatore, in Transfer CMP.No.848 of 2015 and directed to
dispose of the case within a period of sixteen weeks from the
date of receipt of a copy of this order.
Assistant Registrar (CS-VII)
// True Copy //
Sub Assistant Registrar
dua
To:
1.The Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Coimbatore.
2.The Judicial Magistrate, Fast track Court I, Coimbatore.
+1CC to M/s.C.R.Prasanan, Advocate, SR.No. 50016
Crl.R.C.No.422 of 2018
AK II(CO)
B.VC (06/10/2021)
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the Trial Court was justified in ordering simultaneous trial of two interrelated criminal cases despite them not being direct case-counter cases.
Whether the order for simultaneous trial to avoid conflicting decisions and appreciate triangular transaction disputes warrants interference.
M/s.R.K.R.Gold Bullion Private Limited
Muthusamy
M/s.Citra Fuels Limited
M.Gnanalingam
RMT.TEEKAA RAMAN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court