TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (4) TMI 1201
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Praveen Kumar Dutta) has been allowed. (3) Since the facts of both petitions are identical in nature, therefore, for the sake of convenience, they are heard simultaneously. (4) Necessary facts giving rise to present petitions, in brief, are that on 07-11- 2015, petitioner submitted a complaint u/S 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act (in shot '' the NI Act'') before the Court of JMFC alleging therein that on 01-10- 2015 respondent had purchased 18 pieces of truck Tyre and a tube, amounting to Rs. 3 lac and in this regard, respondent had given a cheque of Rs. 3 lac, dated 01- 10-2015 of State Bank of India to the petitioner. When the said cheque was presented before the Canara Bank, Vidisha, on the same day, the same was dishonoured due to ''insufficiency of funds''. Thereafter, a notice dated 09-10- 2015 was issued by the petitioner to the respondent. When the amount was not paid by respondent, the petitioner filed a complaint u/S 138 of the NI Act against respondent and also produced all witnesses in support of his complaint. When the case was fixed for final hearing on 08-02-2021, the respondent filed an application u/S 223 of CrPC mentioning th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hat trial of complaint filed under NI Act has been directed to be listed for final hearing and the Magistrate concerned in another complaint filed by respondent under Sections 200 and 202 of CrPC has taken cognizance for offences under Sections 420, 468, 469, 471 of IPC against petitioner. It appears that the complaint was filed by the respondent in the year 2016 and cognizance has been taken by the Magistrate vide order dated 13-11-2021 i.e. after five years long. Respondent is in habit of filing vague application to create obstacles in the proceedings. Therefore, it is prayed that impugned order dated 12-03-2021 passed by Sessions Judge deserves to be set aside as well as private complaint filed u/Ss 200 & 202 of CrPC by respondent in connection with UNCR No.201/2018 and other subsequent proceedings also deserve to be quashed. (6) In support of his contention, counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Bir Singh Vs. Mukesh Kumar CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS.230-231 OF 2019 (@ SLP(CRL ) NOS. 9334-35 OF 2018) wherein it has been held as under:- ''37. A meaningful reading of the provisions of the Negotiable In....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....agreement made with that bank, such person shall be deemed to have committed an offence and shall, without prejudice to any other provisions of this Act, be punished with imprisonment for a term which may be extended to two years, or with fine which may extend to twice the amount of the cheque, or with both: Provided that nothing contained in this section shall apply unless- (a) the cheque has been presented to the bank within a period of six months from the date on which it is drawn or within the period of its validity, whichever is earlier; (b) the payee or the holder in due course of the cheque, as the case may be, makes a demand for the payment of the said amount of money by giving a notice in writing, to the drawer of the cheque,within thirty days of the receipt of information by him from the bank regarding the return of the cheque as unpaid; and (c) the drawer of such cheque fails to make the payment of the said amount of money to the payee or, as the case may be, to the holder in due course of the cheque, within fifteen days of the receipt of the said notice. Explanation.- For the purposes of this section, "debt or other liability" means a legally enforceable debt o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ns together.'' (11) From bare perusal of the record, it is apparent that earlier respondent filed an application u/S 223 CrPC for hearing of both complaints [UNCR 201/2018 (Praveen Kumar Dutta vs. Vishnu Goyal) & SCNIA/3562/2015 (Vishnu Goyal vs. Praveen Kumar Dutta)] analogously, which was was rejected by the Court of JMFC vide order dated 18-02-2021. Meanwhile, an application u/S 91 CrPC was also filed by respondent before the Court of JMFC and same was rejected vide order dated 11-09-2017. Against order dated 11-09-2017, respondent thereafter filed a Criminal Revision No.108 of 2017 before the Sessions Court which was dismissed vide order dated 13th January, 2018. Against orders dated 11-09-2017 and 13th January, 2018, respondent further filed a petition under Section 482 of CrPC before this Court i.e. MCRC No.3952 of 2018 which was dismissed by a coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 13-12-2018. Subsequently, respondent filed a complaint u/Ss 200 and 202 of CrPC in the year 2016 making allegation that by playing fraud the petitioner has forged his signature and filled blank cheque which was stolen. It appears that the complaint was filed by respondent in th....