TITLE-Single court can decide the proceedings of cases under two different authorities.

BRIEF FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY-

1.     The appellant had alleged that cheque no. 567889 dated 1st March, 2005 bearing amount Rs. 4, 50,000 issued by Respondent no.2 was dishonoured on presentation by the bank stating that the account closed on 28th may, 2005.

2.     So the appellant had filed a complaint for an offence under section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act.

3.     On  this criminal case no. 33537 of 2006 was filed by Appellant No.2 in the court of Judicial Magistrate, Surat on 26th July 2005.

4.     In respond to this, Respondent NO.2 filed a complaint against, the appellant for offence under section 420,406,419,467,468,379,465,475,120-B and 114 of IPC (INDIAN PENAL CODE) bearing criminal case no.9490 of 2008 dated 17th October 2007.

5.     The judicial magistrate for further proceedings in terms of section 156(3) of the CRPC (CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE) forwarded the that complaint to the police station.

6.     F.I.R no.3 of 2007, lodged on basis of order in this point.

7.     The present appeal is against an order passed by the High Court of Gujarat on 11th December, 2017, under which petition for quashing of F.I.R No. 3 of 2007 under which the petition for quashing of FIR No. 3 of 2007 registered at PS Mehsana for offence punishable under Sections 420, 406, 419, 467, 468, 379, 465, 475, 120-B and 114 of the Penal Code, 1860 was dismissed.

8.     Now the contention is to reconsider the matter again.

ARGUMENTS RAISED BY RESPONDENT-

a)     Contention of the respondent is that the three cheques bearing Nos. 567888, 567889 and 567890 were misplaced by the appellant along with rubber stamp, letter head and other important document from the office of the company.

b)     The appellant has showed bank from one of those cheque which he was misplaced so that’s why the cheque got dishonoured on presentation. Thus, the appellants have been rightly facing the prosecution of the offences as mentioned in the FIR.

ARGUMENTS RAISED BY PETITIONER-

a)     The contention of the petitioner is that the cheque was issued with a letter stating that the shares are not issued for which the appellant had contributed the sum of Rs.4, 50,000.

b)      That cheque was issued since the shares could not be issued, so cheque was issued payable after a long period.

ISSUE-  

Ø  Can two proceedings filed under different authority be decided together?

RATIO DECIDENI-

a) Both the complaints pertain to cheque No. 567889 for which Respondent No.2 contended that the cheque is from the cheque book of the Company of which respondent No. 2 is the officer. The appellants rely on  that cheque in a complaint for an offence under Section 138 of the NI Act while the respondent No. 2-complainant alleges that said cheque along with two other cheques had been misplaced which were used by the appellants fraudulently.

b)     The complaint filed by the appellants under Section 138 of the NI Act is earlier in point of time. The complaint filed by respondent No. 2 is more than two years later.

c)     Since the issue in both the cases revolves around the same cheque, therefore, rather than quashing the FIR No. 3 of 2007, the ends of justice would meet if proceedings arising out of FIR No. 3 of 2007 are transferred to the court of Judicial Magistrate, Surat, where the proceedings of other complaint under Section 138 of the NI Act are pending so that the complaint filed by the appellants and the proceedings arising out of FIR alleged by respondent No. 2 are decided together to avoid contradictory judgments and to facilitate the issues common in both.

HELD- The appeal is disposed of with the direction that the proceedings arising out of FIR No. 3 of 2007 PS Mehsana shall stand transferred to the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Surat where the proceedings of complaint No. 33537 of 2006 is pending. Both the cases shall be heard and decided together.