Please Log in / Register to access the full text of this judgment and the entire database
(2024) Law Today Live Doc. Id. 18942 = 2024(1) L.A.R. 237
Decided on: 08.01.2024
Alongwith
SLP(Criminal) No.16584 of 2023
For Petitioner(s):
Mr. Mansoor Ali, AOR, Mr. Bilal Mansoor, Adv., Ms. Rubina Jawed, Adv., Mr. Abhishek Vikas, AOR, Mr. Shivam Sharma, Adv., Mr. Shekhar Singh, Adv., Mr. Saket Singh, Adv.
For Respondent(s):
Mr. Sudeep Kumar, AOR, Mr. Abhishek Vikas, AOR, Mr. Mansoor Ali, AOR, Mr. Bilal Mansoor, Adv., Mr. S. Islam, Adv., Ms. Rubina Jawed, Adv.
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 -- Two similar cheque bounce complaints – Two quashing petitions – In one case notice with protective order in favour of accused issued by High Court – Other Bench dismissed the other petition as devoid of merit – Order set aside, the matters are remitted back to the High Court for analogous consideration.
(Para 4-7)
ORDER
Leave granted.
2. Heard Mr. Abhishek Vikas, learned counsel appearing for the appellants. The State of Uttar Pradesh is represented by Mr. Sudeep Kumar, learned counsel. The common informant (respondent No.3) is represented by Mansoor Ali, learned counsel.
3. The learned counsel for the appellants submits that the appellants are named as accused, inter alia, in the Complaint Case No.37399/2022 and 37401/2022, under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The accused preferred two separate applications under Section 482 CrPC for quashment of the Complaint and the summon order. Both applications were listed on the same day i.e. 21.07.2023 but before different Benches of the same High Court.
4. Interestingly, in the Application U/S 482 - No. 26221 of 2023 of the CrPC, notice was issued by the learned Judge in the quashing application pertaining to the Complaint Case No.37399/2022 with protective order for the accused. Whereas in the other case - Application U/S 482 No.26224 of 2023, the other Bench opined that the application filed under Section 482 is devoid of merit and was accordingly dismissed.
5. Assailing the view taken by the Bench in the application under Section 482 No.26224 of 2023, Mr. Abhishek Vikas, the counsel would argue that since common contention was raised in the case in the dispute between the same set of parties, there should have been analogous consideration of both the cases.
6. The above contention for analogous consideration is not seriously disputed by the learned counsel for the State as also by the informant. However, Mr. Mansoor Ali, learned counsel for the Informant submits that the appellants are not participating in the Trial Court. In response, Mr. Abhishek Vikas, learned counsel submits that the appellants will immediately enter appearance before the Trial court. The Counsel’s statement is taken on record.
7. Having regard to the above, we deem it appropriate to set aside the impugned order dated 21.07.2023 in the Application U/S 482 No. - 26224 of 2023. Accordingly, the matters are remitted back to the High Court so that Application U/S 482 No. - 26224 of 2023 and the other connected matters i.e. Application U/S 482 - No. 26221 of 2023 can be taken up for analogous consideration by the High Court. It is ordered accordingly.
8. The parties are at liberty to mention for expeditious disposal of the two pending cases and the same should be considered appropriately.
9. With the above order, the appeals are disposed of. Pending application(s), if any, stand closed.
Order accordingly.
********