2024 (6) TMI 1259 - HC - Indian Laws

Writ petitions dismissed in cheque dishonour cases for failing to file revisions before Sessions

The Bombay HC dismissed writ petitions challenging various orders in dishonour of cheque cases. The court held that writ petitions were not maintainable ... Dishonour of Cheque - Jurisdiction of court - inquiry under Section 202 of the Cr.P.C. not conducted - maintainability of application under Section 239 of the Cr.P.C. - rejection of applications filed by the petitioner for production of statement of bank accounts of the respondent No. 2 - applications filed for comparison and verification of signature and Handwriting of the petitioner on disputed cheques and each of the page of agreement executed between the petitioner and respondent No. 2 rejected - cheques issued as security - merge of the charge and clubbing of all the cases. Inquiry under Section 202 of the Cr.P.C. - HELD THAT:- The inquiry under Section 202 of the Cr.P.C. was not conducted. The remedy to file revision is available to the petitioner. However, revisions were not filed against said orders of issue process by the petitioner before Sessions Court. The applications for quashing of the complaints u/ s 482 of the Cr.P.C. are not filed. However, quashing is prayed in the writ petitions. Therefore, directly filing of writ petitions against the orders of issue process are not maintainable. Maintainability of application under Section 239 of the Cr.P.C. - HELD THAT:- The applications filed for discharge of the petitioner are not maintainable. The said applications were rightly rejected by the Trial Court. No interference is warranted in these orders. Application for production of statement of bank accounts of the respondent No. 2 were rejected - HELD THAT:- The petitioner has ample opportunity to lead that evidence. The Court can also compare signatures on it under Section 73 of the Indian Evidence Act. The Court expressed that it will compare signature. It is surprising to note that once issuance of cheques is admitted by the petitioner, how the signature on it can be challenged. There is no scope for interference in these well reasoned impugned orders. Applications filed for comparison and verification of signature and Handwriting of the petitioner on disputed cheques and each of the page of agreement executed between the petitioner and respondent No. 2 rejected - HELD THAT:- It is admitted facts that cheques were issued as security. It means signatures are admitted. It is matter of evidence. Those applications were filed to support the applications filed for discharge. The discharge applications were held not maintainable as discussed above. The Trial Court held that petitioner - accused will have opportunity to lead evidence. Application is premature. Thus, petitioner can file the application of same nature after the evidence of respondent No. 2 is over, if necessary - The Trial Court has rightly exercised judicial discretion and interference is not warranted in the impugned orders. Therefore, well reasoned orders passed on those applications require no interference. Applications filed for merge of the charge and clubbing of all the cases together rejected - HELD THAT:- The charges were not framed in those cases. In summary cases, charge cannot be framed. It is only statement of accusation to be confronted to the accused and not charge. Therefore, no question of merging of charge arises. Such applications are not maintainable. As per Section 408 of the Cr.P.C. the application must be moved before the Sessions Court for clubbing those cases. Those applications were also not maintainable before trial court. Applications filed for dismissal of complaint for want of jurisdiction, rejected - HELD THAT:- The revisions before Sessions Court against the orders of Trial Court regarding issue of jurisdiction are to be filed. Those were not filed by the petitioner. In case of rejecting the application challenging the jurisdiction of the court to proceed with the trial, even though it may not be final in one sense, is surely not interlocutory order, substantially it is a final order - The writ petitions are not maintainable against the said orders. In case of Ahuja Dongre relied upon by the petitioner, the revision was filed before the Sessions Court and that Judgment was challenged. In this case, revision is not filed. Thus, it is not helpful to the petitioner. The revision is not filed. Therefore, case of Sayed Mohammed, cited supra by the petitioner is not relied upon. The applications for interim compensation in each case were granted by the Trial Court. All these orders granting interim compensation passed u/s 143-A of the N.I. Act are well reasoned. There is no any illegality and perversity to interfere in it. The revisions were not preferred against those orders u/s 397 Cr.P.C. Therefore, the writ petitions are not maintainable against those orders. The arguments of learned Advocate for petitioner are not accepted in all writs. All the writ petitions are dismissed. Issues:1. Quashing of orders passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.2. Jurisdiction of the Court to try the cases.3. Maintainability of writ petitions against multiple impugned orders.4. Applications for discharge, production of bank statements, comparison of signatures, and merging of cases.5. Granting of interim compensation under Section 143-A of the N.I. Act.Analysis:1. The writ petitions sought to quash orders passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class in Summary Criminal Cases under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The petitioner challenged various orders related to issue process, production of bank statements, examination of signatures, and grant of interim compensation. The Court examined the facts of the cases involving dishonored cheques and statutory notices issued under Section 138 of the N.I. Act.2. The petitioner contested the jurisdiction of the Nandurbar JMFC Court to try the cases, arguing that the transactions occurred in Pune, and the Court lacked jurisdiction. The petitioner claimed that the procedure under Section 202 of the Cr.P.C. was not followed, rendering the issue of process illegal. The respondent No. 2 argued that the orders were legally sound, and revisions challenging jurisdiction were not filed. Legal precedents regarding jurisdiction and discretion of the Court were cited by both parties.3. The Court addressed the maintainability of multiple writ petitions against various impugned orders in different cases. The petitioner's applications for discharge, production of bank statements, comparison of signatures, and merging of cases were examined. The respondent No. 2 argued that the orders were legally valid and no revisions were filed against them. The Court emphasized that each case must be decided on its own merits.4. The applications filed by the petitioner for discharge, production of bank statements, comparison of signatures, and merging of cases were analyzed. The Court held that the applications for discharge were not maintainable in summary cases under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. The rejection of these applications was deemed justified, and interference was not warranted. The Court also addressed the rejection of applications for merging cases and dismissal for want of jurisdiction.5. The Court examined the applications for interim compensation granted under Section 143-A of the N.I. Act. It was noted that revisions were not filed against these orders, and the Court found no illegality or perversity in the decisions. The petitioner's plea for interference in these orders was dismissed. The Court concluded that no interference was warranted in the impugned orders, and all writ petitions were dismissed, directing parties to bear their own costs.