Madhya Pradesh High Court
Bajaj Construction And Balaji Tubewell vs Pramod Traders on 12 May, 2022
Author: Atul Sreedharan
Bench: Atul Sreedharan
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ATUL SREEDHARAN
ON THE 12th OF MAY, 2022
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 17137 of 2022
Between:-
BAJAJ CONSTRUCTION AND BALAJI
TUBEWELL THROUGH ITS. PROPRIETOR /
COMPETENT PERSON ANIMESH AGRAWAL
MPEB COLONY RAJEEV WARD GADARWADA
P.S. AND TEH. GADARWARA DISTT.
NARSINGHPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI PRAHLAD CHOUDHARY, LEARNED ADVOCATE)
AND
PRAMOD TRADERS THROUGH ITS
PROPERIETOR PRAMOD SAHU JHIKOLI ROAD
SAIKHEDA P.S. SAIKHEDA TEH. GADDARWAF
DITT. NARSINGHPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENT
(NONE FOR THE RESPONDENT)
Th is application coming on for motion hearing this day, the court
passed the following:
ORDER
The present petition has been filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. whereby the petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 26.03.2022 passed by the learned trial Court which rejected an application moved by the petitioner under Section 257 Cr.P.C.
The petitioner is the complainant in RCT No.882/2018 (Bajaj Signature Not Verified SAN Constructions vs. Pramod Sahu). The said case is pending before the learned Digitally signed by priyanka pithawe mishra Date: 2022.05.13 15:15:15 IST JMFC, Gardarwara, District Narsinghpur. The case was initiated on the basis of 2 a complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C. The respondent is stated to have given a cheque to the petitioner for an amount of Rs.70,000/- (Rs. Seventy Thousand) which bounced. The petitioner filed the aforementioned complaint case under Section 200 Cr.P.C. inter-alia under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for brevity, 'the Act') but also including offences under Sections 420, 467 and 468 of Indian Penal Code (IPC). The learned trial Court did not take cognizance of the offence under Section 138 of the Act. However, it took cognizance of offences under Sections 420, 467 and 468 of IPC. Thereafter, there was an out of Court settlement between the petitioner/complainant and the respondent/accused and the petitioner put in the application under Section 257 Cr.P.C. as he was no longer interested in prosecuting the case before the learned Magistrate. The learned Magistrate dismissed the said application by the impugned order on the grounds of lack of jurisdiction because he has taken cognizance of offences under Sections 467 and 468 along with Section 420 of IPC which offences are triable by the Court of Sessions. The proceedings before the Magistrate were actually awaiting committal to the Court of Sessions. Under the circumstances, the learned court of the Magistrate dismissed the application.
As far as the dismissal of the application by the learned Magistrate is concerned, the same cannot be faulted on the question of law for the simple reason that once he has taken cognizance of offences which were triable exclusively by the Court of Sessions, he could not thereafter not undo the act of cognizance already taken by him and he had to necessarily, commit the case to the Court of Sessions.
Signature Not Verified SANHowever, as the petitioner himself is the complainant and does not want Digitally signed by priyanka pithawe mishra Date: 2022.05.13 15:15:15 IST to prosecute the case any longer against the respondent herein, this case can be 3 disposed of in the absence of the respondent. Under the circumstances, the petition is allowed and further proceedings against the respondent herein in RCT No.882/2018 pending in the Court of the learned JMFC Gadarwara, stands quashed.
With the above, the petition is finally disposed of. C.c. as per rules.
(ATUL SREEDHARAN) JUDGE Priya.P Signature Not Verified SAN Digitally signed by priyanka pithawe mishra Date: 2022.05.13 15:15:15 IST