Disposed

Govind Narain Saini and Anr. v. State of Rajasthan and Anr.

Rajasthan HC2 Jul 2018CRLMP/2929/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this criminal miscellaneous petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the High Court addressed a conflict between a pending Section 138 cheque bounce complaint and a parallel forgery FIR. The court directed the Sessions Judge to assign both cases to the same court for simultaneous trial to prevent contradictory findings. The petition was disposed of as the direction was issued.

What did the court decide?

Direction issued to assign both the Section 138 N.I. Act case and the forgery FIR to the same Court for simultaneous trial.

Govind Narain Saini and Anr. Vs State of Rajasthan and Anr. — Cheque Dishonour | Rajasthan HC (2018)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 2929/2017

¶3

Govind Narain Saini And Anr

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

State Of Rajasthan And Anr

¶7

----Respondent

¶8

For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Suruchi Kasliwal For Respondent(s) : Mr. Prakash Thakuriya, PP for State Mr. Nitesh Rawat, for respondent No.2

¶9

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA

¶10

Order

¶11

02/07/2018

¶12

Present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. praying that the impugned FIR bearing No.81/2010 dated 6.2.2010 registered at Police Station Vaishali Nagar, Jaipur (South) for offences under Sections 420, 406, 467, 468, 469, 471, 474 and 120B IPC be quashed alongwith order dated 26.11.2016 passed by the Additional Civil Judge & Metropolitan Magistrate No.11, Jaipur Metropolitan, whereby charges were framed against the petitioner. It is further prayed that the order dated 8.5.2017 passed by the revisional court below whereby order framing charge was affirmed, be also set aside.

¶13

It may be noticed briefly that petitioner No.1 Govind Narain Saini allegedly, advanced a loan of Rs.15 Lac to complainantrespondent No.2. It is further alleged that the complainantrespondent No.2 on behalf of M/s. Empire Ceramics Pvt. Ltd. had issued a cheque in favour of petitioner No.1. The said cheque, on presentation, had bounced due to insufficiency of funds.

¶14

[CRLMP-2929/2017]

¶15

(2 of 3)

¶16

Resultantly, petitioners filed a complaint under Section 138, N.I. Act against respondent No.2. It is contended that as a counterblast, respondent No.2 lodged the impugned FIR stating therein that probably his signatures on the cheque have been forged and fabricated.

¶17

In nutshell, controversy before the courts of law is whether the cheque has been validly executed and contains signature of complainant-respondent No.2 or not? Therefore, two versions have been emerged, one given by the accused-petitioners that the cheque, indeed, was signed by the complainant and on presentation had bounced due to insufficiency of funds, another version propounded by respondent No.2 is that the cheque was never issued by him and contains forged and fabricated signatures. Thus, whether the signatures on the cheque are forged or fabricated is a disputed question of fact and requires evidence.

¶18

At this juncture, Ms. Suruchi Kasliwal, learned counsel for the petitioners, has submitted that there is every apprehension that in two parallel proceedings, conflicting findings may emerge and it may cause judicial embarrassment. It is submitted that the complaint filed by the petitioners under Section 138, N.I. Act, is pending before the Court of Special Judge (N.I. Act) Cases No.3, Jaipur Metropolitan, whereas case arising out of impugned FIR lodged by respondent No.2 is pending before the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate No.11, Jaipur Metropolitan.

¶19

I find merit in the alternative prayer made by Ms. Suruchi Kasliwal, learned counsel for petitioners, as same is also not contested by learned counsel for respondent No.2.

¶20

Consequently, to ward off emergence of conflicting findings in two parallel proceedings, a direction is issued to the Sessions

¶21

[CRLMP-2929/2017]

¶22

(3 of 3)

¶23

Judge, Jaipur Metropolitan to assign both the cases, one arising out of complaint filed under Section 138, N.I. Act, by the petitioners and case arising out of FIR No.81/2010 dated 6.2.2010 registered at Police Station Vaishali Nagar, Jaipur (South), to the one court. The said court to which both the cases shall be assigned, shall try both the cases separately, but simultaneously.

¶24

Learned counsel for the parties undertake to furnish particulars of both the cases to the Sessions Judge, Jaipur Metropolitan, within one week from today. Upon receipt of particulars, to comply with the direction issued by this court, Sessions Jude shall pass necessary orders.

¶25

In view of above, present petition stands disposed of.

¶26

(KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA),J

¶27

Govind/

Govind Narain Saini and Anr. v. State of Rajasthan and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Govind Narain Saini and Anr. v. State of Rajasthan and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Surendra Kumar Vs State of Raj and Anr.

Smt Shikha Sachadeva Vs Rajeev Sachadeva and Ors.

Kishan Lal Saini Vs State of Raj and Ors.

Sanjay Vs State of Rajasthan and Anr.

Amit Vijay Vs State of Rajasthan

Hemendra Kumar Vs State of Raj and Anr.