Dismissed

M/S A.P. Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. v. Sanjeev Mehra Authorized Officer Director

Rajasthan HC15 Dec 2022CRLMP/5240/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an appeal under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the High Court of Rajasthan dismissed the petition challenging the rejection of an application to consolidate multiple Section 138 N.I. Act complaints. The Court held that Section 219 Cr.P.C. applies only to warrant cases, not summons cases, and found no ground to interfere with the lower court's order.

What did the court decide?

The criminal miscellaneous petition and the stay application were dismissed with no ground to interfere with the impugned order.

M/S A.P. Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. Vs Sanjeev Mehra… — Cheque Dishonour | Rajasthan HC (2022)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 5240/2022

¶3

M/s A.P. Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., Registered Office 77, Industrial Area, Phase-Ii, Chandigarh. 1600032, Through Its Director Narendra Kumar Garg.

¶4

Narendra Kumar Garg Director, M/s A.p. Enterprise Pvt. Ltd. Registered Office 77, Industrial Area, Phase-Ii, Chandigarh. 160002.

¶5

----Petitioners

¶6

Versus

¶7

Sanjeev Mehra Authorized Officer Director, M/s Bhagwati Kripa Paper Mills Pvt. Ltd. Head Office B-98, 10-B Scheme, Gopalpura Bypass, Jaipur (Raj.)

¶8

----Respondent

¶9

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vijendra Yadav For Respondent(s) : Mr. Mohit Khandelwal Mr. Falok Mathur

¶10

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND

¶11

Order

¶12

15/12/2022

¶13

Instant petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. against the impugned order dated 20.05.2022 passed by the Special Metropolitan Magistrate (N.I. Act cases) No. 5, Jaipur Metropolitan-Ist, Jaipur in complaint No. 1218/2018 (Cr. No. 99031/2018) by which the application filed by the petitioner under Section 219 Cr.P.C. for consolidation of four similar complaints filed against the petitioner by the same complainant under Section 138 Cr.P.C. bearing No. 1219/2018, 1365/2018, 1218/2018 and 1363/2018 has been rejected.

¶14

(2 of 3)

¶15

[CRLMP-5240/2022]

¶16

Counsel for the petitioner submits that as per the provisions contained under Section 219 Cr.P.C., the complaint can be consolidated as the section clearly lays down that when a person is accused of more offences than one of the same kind committed within the space of twelve months from the first to the last of such offences, whether in respect of the same person or not, he may be charged with, and tried at one trial for, any number of them not exceeding three.

¶17

Counsel for the petitioner submits that in the instant case cheques were issued in the same year, the same were bounced in the same year, the complaints were also submitted in the same year and as per the provisions contained under section 219 Cr.P.C. the trial Judge was duty bond to consolidate all of the above complaints.

¶18

Per contra, learned counsel for the complainant submitted that under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the provisions contained under Section 219 Cr.P.C. are not applicable in the some of the cases and the offences under Section 138 of the N.I. Act fall under the summons cases. Counsel submits that the provisions contained under Section 219 Cr.P.C. are applicable in warrant cases only.

¶19

In support of his contentions, counsel for the respondent has placed reliance on the judgment of this Court passed in the case of Jagmohan and Ors. Vs. State and Anr. , S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 942/2018. Counsel submits that under these circumstances, trial Court has not committed any error in rejecting the application filed by the petitioner.

¶20

Heard, considered the rival submissions made on behalf of the respective parties.

¶21

(3 of 3)

¶22

[CRLMP-5240/2022]

¶23

A perusal of Section 219 Cr.P.C. shows that it does not apply to the summons cases as under Section 251 Cr.P.C. only the substance of accusation are read out and no formal charges are framed. In case no charges are to be framed, there lies no requirement of clubbing the cases as Section 219 Cr.P.C. applies only to the warrant cases.

¶24

This analysis has been followed by this Court in a catena of cases namely in the case of Raj Kumar Vs. Smt. Neelam Pathak and Anr. reported in 2012 (3) Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 1445 following the judgment passed by this Court in the case of Vijay Dev and Ors. Vs. Kailash Chand and Anr. reported in 2008 (2) Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 1206.

¶25

In view of the consistent law laid down by the abovementioned judgments, this Court finds no ground to interfere in the well reasoned orders passed by the Court below.

¶26

The instant petition as well as stay application stands dismissed.

¶27

(ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J

¶28

Ashu/98

M/S A.P. Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. v. Sanjeev Mehra Authorized Officer Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S A.P. Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. v. Sanjeev Mehra Authorized Officer Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Nawab Singh Son of Late Shri Gajsingh, Vs State of Rajasthan

Laksham Singh S/O Ganpat Ram Vs State of Rajasthan

Rameshwar Singh Burdak S/O Shri Jagannath Prasad Jat, Vs State of Rajasthan

Kamani D/O Rameshwar W/O Rameshwar Meena, Vs State of Rajasthan

Anju Meena D/O Dharmsingh Meena, Vs State of Rajasthan

Ghanshyam S/O Late Shri Bheru Vs State of Rajasthan