Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Pawan Kumar Jalan vs State Of Raj And Anr on 14 September, 2018
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 1806/2018
Pawan Kumar Jalan Son Of Shri Subh Karan, By Caste Mahajan,
R/o Behind Power House, Meghsar Road, Ratan Nagar, District
Churu Raj.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Rajasthasn through PP
2. Firm M/s Jugal Kishore and Sons, Ramgarh Shekawati,
son of Shri Jugal Kishore, by caste Jat, r/o Ramgarh
Shekhwati Tehsil Fatehpur, District Sikar Raj.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Anil Upman
For Respondent(s) : Ms. Meenakshi Pareek PP
Mr. Abhishek Sharma for respondent
no.2 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA
-/Order/-
14/09/2018 The present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to assail the order dated 31.10.2017 passed by the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sikar in Criminal Case No. (69/2012) 143/2013 titled Kailash Chandra vs. Pawan Kumar Jalan on the ground that the proceedings under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act are not maintainable before the trial court.
2. This Court on 11.4.2018 had passed the following order:-
"The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the petitioner had issued a cheque and the said cheque on presentation had bounced.
(2 of 3) [CRLMP-1806/2018] The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the complainant had filed Criminal Complaint No.69/2012. The petitioner was tried by the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sikar for offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act and was acquitted. It is submitted that aggrieved against the acquittal of the petitioner, the complainant filed an appeal. The said appeal was entertained and in the appeal, order of trial court was set aside and matter was remanded back to the trial court. The learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that aggrieved against the same, the petitioner filed a Criminal Revision Petition No. 938/2015 in this Court. The said revision petition was decided by the co-ordinate Bench on 12.9.2016 and the order of Appellate court below was set aside. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that aggrieved against the same, the complainant filed Special Leave Petition and the said Special Leave Petition was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to the petitioner to raise all grounds before the trial court.
The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the order passed in revision petition has not been set aside by the Supreme Court. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the acquittal of the petitioner has attained finality and thus, the trial court could not call the petitioner to face trial. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner cannot be tried for offence for which he has been acquitted as it amounts to double jeopardy and the petitioner is protected under Article 20(3) of Constitution of India and Section 300 of Cr.P.C.
Issue notice to the respondents for 6.7.2018. List this case on 6.7.2018. Meanwhile, further proceedings in the trial court shall remain stayed. "
3. Mr. Abhishek Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the respondent no.2 has very fairly admitted that after the revision petition was decided by this Court, the remedy available with the complainant was to only file an application under Section 378(4) Cr.P.C to seek leave to appeal against the judgment of the acquittal.
4. Learned counsel for the complainant/respondent no.2 has submitted that the complainant under the wrong notion (3 of 3) [CRLMP-1806/2018] pursued his remedy before the court where proceedings were not maintainable. Learned counsel for the complainant has prayed that he may be permitted to take recourse to lawful remedy available to him in accordance with the provisions of law.
5. Learned counsel for the complainant has submitted that he shall file an application for condonation of delay alongwith the application for leave to appeal under Section 378(4) Cr.P.C. on the ground that under mistaken notion remedy was pursued before the court where it was not maintainable.
6. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the present petition is allowed and the proceeding pending before the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sikar between the parties pertaining to Cr. Case No. (69/2012) 143/2013 titled Kailash Chandra vs. Pawan Kumar Jalan are quashed.
7. Needless to say, the complainant can always pursue lawful remedy available to him in accordance with the provisions of law.
(KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA),J Mak/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)