SHRI PARESHBHAI AMRUTLAL PATEL Vs THE STATE OF GUJARAT
Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. NAGESWARA RAO, HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA
Judgment by: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. NAGESWARA RAO
Case number: Crl.A. No.-000317-000317 / 2020
Diary number: 10458 / 2018
Advocates: NIRANJANA SINGH Vs
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 317 OF 2020 (ARISING OUT OF SLP (CRIMINAL) NO. 3431 OF 2018)
SHRI PARESHBHAI AMRUTLAL PATEL & ORS. .....APPELLANT(S)
THE STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR. .....RESPONDENT(S)
J U D G M E N T
HEMANT GUPTA, J.
1. The present appeal is directed against an order passed by the High
Court of Gujarat on 11th December, 2017 whereby 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 Indian Penal Code, 18601 was dismissed.
2. The appellants had filed a complaint for an offence under Section
138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 18812 alleging that cheque
No. 567889 dated 1st March, 2005 in the sum of Rs.4,50,000/- was
issued by respondent No.2, which was dishonoured on presentation
with the remarks that the account closed on 28th May, 2005. A
1 for short, ‘IPC’ 2 for short, ‘NI Act’
complaint bearing private criminal case No. 33537 of 2006 was
filed by appellant No.2 in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Surat on
26th July, 2005.
3. It is thereafter, the complainant (respondent No. 2) filed a
complaint against the appellants for offences under Sections 420,
406, 419, 467, 468, 379, 465, 475, 120-B and 114 of IPC bearing
Criminal Case No. 9490 of 2008 on 17th October, 2007. The
learned Magistrate forwarded the said complaint to the Police in
terms of Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 19733.
FIR No. 3 of 2007, as mentioned above, was lodged on the basis of
4. The appellants had sought quashing of the said FIR in a petition
under Section 482 of the Code which was dismissed by the High
Court. The respondent No.2 had alleged that three cheques
bearing Nos.567888, 567889 and 567890 were misplaced along
with letter heads, rubber stamps and other important documents
from the office of the Company and one of the cheques had been
used by the appellants which was dishonoured on presentation.
Therefore, the appellants have been rightly facing the prosecution
of the offences as mentioned in the FIR.
5. The stand of the appellants is that such cheque was given to them
along with letter dated 25th November, 2002 in view of the fact that
the Company had not issued shares for which the appellants had
3 for short, ‘Code’
contributed a sum of Rs.4,50,000/-. The cheque in question was
issued since the shares could not be issued, therefore, cheque was
issued payable after a long period.
6. No one has put in appearance on behalf of respondent No. 2 even
though served. We have heard learned counsel for the parties.
7. We find that the issue in both the complaints pertains to cheque
No. 567889 which was said to be from the cheque book of the
Company of which respondent No. 2 is the officer. The appellants
rely upon the said cheque in a complaint for an offence under
Section 138 of the NI Act whereas the respondent No.2-
complainant alleges that said cheque along with two other cheques
had been misplaced which were used by the appellants
8. 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. Since the issue in both the cases
revolves around the same cheque, therefore, we find that instead
of 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 which are
common in both.
9. Consequently, 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.
10. The parties are directed to appear before the Court of Judicial
Magistrate, Surat on 16th March, 2020 for further proceedings in
accordance with law.
.............................................J. (D.Y. CHANDRACHUD)
.............................................J. (HEMANT GUPTA)
NEW DELHI; FEBRUARY 28, 2020.