Full Text
Translation output
$-31 HIGH COURT OF DELHI
TR.P.(CRL.) 11/2013
SHYAMPAL Petitioner
Through Mr. Jayant K. Sud, Mr. Chirag Khurana and Mr. Ujas Kumar, Advocates.
TR.P.(CRL.) 11/2013
SHYAMPAL Petitioner
Through Mr. Jayant K. Sud, Mr. Chirag Khurana and Mr. Ujas Kumar, Advocates.
VERSUS
SANJAY GOYAL
Through Respondent Mr. Ashish Mohan & Mr Rohit
Gandhi, Advocates.
Through Respondent Mr. Ashish Mohan & Mr Rohit
Gandhi, Advocates.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
08.05.2013 Petitioner is an accused in the following three criminal complaints under Section 138 ofNegotiable Instruments Act, 1881:- i. C.C. No.362/1/12 titled as Sanjay Goyal HUF vs. Sh. Shyampal pending before Ms. Vijeta Singh, MM, Patiala House District
Courts, New Delhi. a. C.C. No.363/1/12 titled as Sanjay Goyal Vs. Sh. Shyampal pending before Ms. Vijeta Singh, MM, Patiala House District
Courts, New Delhi.
Hi. C.C. No.8111/02 titled as Sanjay Goyal Vs. Shyampal pending before Ms. Niyaya Bindu, MM, Saket District Courts, New Delhi.
Two out of the aforesaid three complaints are pending before the
District Courts at Patiala House, New Delhi and the third one is pending before District Courts at Saket, New Delhi and, in this petition, TR.P.(CRL.) 11/2013 Page 1
2013:DHC:8253 consolidation of the above referred three complaints before one court is sought. At the hearing, petitioner's counsel had urged that the aforesaid three complaints ^re between the same parties and to avoid hardship and multiple trials resulting in conflicting decisions, it wouldbe in the interestof justice that aforesaid three complaints are tried by one court. Learned counsel for the respondent had though disputed that the parties in the above three complaints are the same but had submitted on instructions thattaking into consideration that the parties reside withinthe territorial jurisdiction of the District Courts at Saket, it would be in the interest of justice that the above three complaints are tried by one court at District Courts in Saket.
However, respondent's counsel had strongly opposed the clubbing of these three complaints by pointing out that in C.C. No.8111/02 evidence of petitioner has been closed and the matter is now listed for orders whereas the other two criminal complaints are pending at the stage of recording of the statement ofpetitioner-accused.
At this stage, petitioner's counsel points out that the order of trial court in C.C. No.8111/02 closingpetitioner's evidence is under challenge in a criminal revision petition before the Sessions Court and so these three complaints are at somewhat same stage and, thus, they ought to be tried together.
Upon hearing both the sides and on perusal ofthe material on record, I find that though there is no prohibition in the Code of Criminal Procedure or Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 against joint trial of two similar offences under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 but it has to be kept in mind as to at what stage are the proceedings in the criminal complaints like the instant one. Since the parties are residing within the
08.05.2013 Petitioner is an accused in the following three criminal complaints under Section 138 ofNegotiable Instruments Act, 1881:- i. C.C. No.362/1/12 titled as Sanjay Goyal HUF vs. Sh. Shyampal pending before Ms. Vijeta Singh, MM, Patiala House District
Courts, New Delhi. a. C.C. No.363/1/12 titled as Sanjay Goyal Vs. Sh. Shyampal pending before Ms. Vijeta Singh, MM, Patiala House District
Courts, New Delhi.
Hi. C.C. No.8111/02 titled as Sanjay Goyal Vs. Shyampal pending before Ms. Niyaya Bindu, MM, Saket District Courts, New Delhi.
Two out of the aforesaid three complaints are pending before the
District Courts at Patiala House, New Delhi and the third one is pending before District Courts at Saket, New Delhi and, in this petition, TR.P.(CRL.) 11/2013 Page 1
2013:DHC:8253 consolidation of the above referred three complaints before one court is sought. At the hearing, petitioner's counsel had urged that the aforesaid three complaints ^re between the same parties and to avoid hardship and multiple trials resulting in conflicting decisions, it wouldbe in the interestof justice that aforesaid three complaints are tried by one court. Learned counsel for the respondent had though disputed that the parties in the above three complaints are the same but had submitted on instructions thattaking into consideration that the parties reside withinthe territorial jurisdiction of the District Courts at Saket, it would be in the interest of justice that the above three complaints are tried by one court at District Courts in Saket.
However, respondent's counsel had strongly opposed the clubbing of these three complaints by pointing out that in C.C. No.8111/02 evidence of petitioner has been closed and the matter is now listed for orders whereas the other two criminal complaints are pending at the stage of recording of the statement ofpetitioner-accused.
At this stage, petitioner's counsel points out that the order of trial court in C.C. No.8111/02 closingpetitioner's evidence is under challenge in a criminal revision petition before the Sessions Court and so these three complaints are at somewhat same stage and, thus, they ought to be tried together.
Upon hearing both the sides and on perusal ofthe material on record, I find that though there is no prohibition in the Code of Criminal Procedure or Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 against joint trial of two similar offences under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 but it has to be kept in mind as to at what stage are the proceedings in the criminal complaints like the instant one. Since the parties are residing within the
TR.P.(CRL.) 11/2013 ^ Page 2 territorial jurisdiction of District Courts at Saket, Delhi, therefore, it is directed that C.C. Nos.362/1/12 as well as C.C. No.363/1/12 be transferred to the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate (NI Act)-01, South-East Saket, New Delhi.
As the legal entity of the complainant in the abovesaid three complaints is different, therefore, joint trial of the abovesaid three complaints is not deemed feasible. Accordingly, this petition is allowed to the extent oftransferring C.C. Nos.363/1/12 and 362/1/12 to the court where
C.C. No.8111/02 is pending with a rider that these three complaints be proceeded with fromthe stageat whichthey are pending.
With aforesaid directions,this petition is disposed of
MAY 08,2013 rb
As the legal entity of the complainant in the abovesaid three complaints is different, therefore, joint trial of the abovesaid three complaints is not deemed feasible. Accordingly, this petition is allowed to the extent oftransferring C.C. Nos.363/1/12 and 362/1/12 to the court where
C.C. No.8111/02 is pending with a rider that these three complaints be proceeded with fromthe stageat whichthey are pending.
With aforesaid directions,this petition is disposed of
MAY 08,2013 rb
TR.P.(CRL.) 11/2013
(SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
Page 3
(SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
Page 3
JUDGMENT