[ 1 ]

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

---

CRIMINAL MISC.(PET.)(CRLMP) NO.184 of 2016

Harjinder Singh S/o Shri Amarjeet Singh, by caste-Majhabi Sikh, resident of 23 P.S. (C), Tehsil-Raisinghpur, District-Sriganganagar (Rajasthan).

….Petitioner

VERSUS

Balvinder Kaur W/o Late Shri Jasvinder Pal Singh, by caste – Ramdasia Sikh, resident of Ward No.7, Near LBS School, Raisinghnagar, District - Sriganganagar (Rajasthan).

...Respondent

Date of Order :: 08.11.2016

HON'BLE MR. P.K. LOHRA, J.

Mr. Vijay Jain, for the Petitioner.

O R D E R

---

BY THE COURT :

Accused-petitioner has laid this misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for seeking quashment of complaint case No.428/2013 (Balvinder Kaur Vs. Harjinder Singh) pending before Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Raisinghnagar (for short, 'learned trial Court'). The ancillary prayer is also made in the

petition for annulment of impugned order dated 10.08.2015 passed by Additional District and Sessions Judge, Raisinghnagar, District Sri Ganganagar (for short, 'learned revisional Court') affirming order dated 07.04.2015 passed by the learned trial Court.

The facts apposite for the purpose of this petition are that respondent-complainant filed a criminal complaint against the petitioner under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act with the specific allegation that petitioner has issued cheque to her in discharge of his debt or liability and when the said cheque was presented before the Bank it was dishonored due to insufficiency of fund in the Bank account of the petitioner. Learned trial Court took cognizance against the petitioner and presently the proceedings before the learned trial Court are going on. During pendency before learned trial Court, an endeavour was made by the petitioner for staying proceeding in the matter precisely on the ground that he has preferred a petition under Section 6(1) of the Rajasthan Relief of Agricultural Indebtedness Act, 1957 (for short, 'Act of 1957')against the complainant and the same is pending before Debt Relief Court. The petitioner has averred in the application that in all the total debt of the petitioner is Rs.10,000/- only and the complainant has manipulated cheque by mentioning huge amount of Rs.2,50,000/-and therefore until application under Section 6(1) of the Act of 1957 is finally adjudicated by the said Court further proceeding in the complaint case be stayed. Learned trial Court, after considering the prayer of the petitioner, by its order dated 07.04.2015, declined the said prayer. Being aggrieved by the same, petitioner invoked revisional jurisdiction and the learned revisional Court, by the order impugned dated 10.08.2015, rejected the revision petition. Learned revisional Court made sincere endeavour to examine correctness, legality and propriety of the order passed by the learned trial Court and while relying on some of the binding legal precedents has declined to interfere with the order passed by the learned trial Court.

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the impugned orders and also made endeavour to examine the provisions contained under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

It is noteworthy that complaint laid against the petitioner under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is pending before learned trial Court since 2013 and on being confronted, learned counsel is unable to divulge requisite information about the stage of the proceeding before the learned trial Court in the matter.

This petition came up before the Court at the threshold on 12.02.2016 and it was deferred on a request being made by learned counsel for the petitioner. While deferring the matter, the Court was pleased to pass following order:-

" ;ksX; vf/koDrk ;kph us cgl ds fy;s le; pkgkA ;g Li"V fd;k tkrk gS fd v/khuLFk U;k;ky; e sa yafcr izdj.k dh dk;Zokgh ij fdlh izdkj dk Lfkxu ugha gS] vr% v/khuLFk U;k;ky; yafcr izdj.k e sa fu;ekuqlkj vUoh{kk dk;Zokgh tkjh j[ksaA dk;kZy; dks funsZ'k fn;k tkrk gS fd bl vkns'k dh izfr v/khuLFk U;k;ky; dks Hksth tkosA i=koyh nks lIrkg ckn lwphc) gksA"

The order aforesaid makes it abundantly clear that the Court was not inclined to interfere in the matter and that being so positive directions were issued to the learned trial Court to proceed with the trial.

Be that as it may, upon examining the afflictions of the petitioner objectively in the light of Section 6(1) of the Act of 1957 and the whole scheme of the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, in my opinion, prayer made by the petitioner for staying the proceeding is wholly untenable. Learned revisional Court has also recorded a definite finding that such plea at the behest of an accused cannot be countenanced. In the complaint, as a matter of fact, learned trial Court has taken cognizance and the trial has materially progressed therefore, looking to the delinquency of the petitioner, it is not desirable to interfere in the matter for quashing the proceeding. It is apparently not a case wherein learned trial Court has committed any manifest error of law which has resulted in miscarriage of justice.

Consequently, the petition fails and the same is hereby dismissed summarily.

( P.K. LOHRA ),J.