Joint trial for same cheque dispute ordered to avoid conflicting findings; FIR proceedings transferred, quashing refused.

Proceedings arising from an FIR and a pending complaint under the Negotiable Instruments Act concerned the same cheque and substantially overlapping facts. Because parallel trials before different courts could produce inconsistent findings, the Court held that the proper course was joint adjudication before one forum to secure the ends of justice. The request for quashing was declined, but the FIR-based proceedings were ordered to be transferred to the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Surat, for hearing and decision together with the existing complaint.

---

---

Issues: Whether proceedings arising out of the FIR should be quashed or transferred so that both matters concerning the same cheque are tried together.

Analysis: The complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 was earlier in point of time, while the FIR-based prosecution arose later but centred on the same cheque and substantially overlapping facts. In these circumstances, simultaneous adjudication before different courts could lead to contradictory findings. To secure the ends of justice, the proper course was to have both matters heard together by the same court.

Conclusion: The request for quashing was declined, and the proceedings arising out of the FIR were directed to be transferred to the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Surat for joint hearing and decision with the pending complaint.

Ratio Decidendi: When two criminal proceedings turn on the same transaction and common factual issues, they may be transferred to the same court for joint adjudication to avoid conflicting judgments and ensure the ends of justice.

---