MANU/SC/0233/2020

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal No. 317 of 2020 (Arising out of SLP (Criminal) No. 3431 of 2018)
Decided On: 28.02.2020
Appellants: Pareshbhai Amrutlal Patel and Ors.
Vs.
Respondent: The State of Gujarat and Ors.
Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
D.Y. Chandrachud and Hemant Gupta, JJ.
Case Category:
CRIMINAL MATTERS - MATTERS FOR/AGAINST QUASHING OF CRIMINAL
PROCEEDINGS
Case Note:
Criminal - Quashing of proceedings - Denial of - Sections 114, 120-B, 379,
406, 419, 420, 465, 467, 468 and 475 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and
Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 - Appellants had filed
complaint for offence of dishonor of cheque under Section 138 of Act
against Respondent No. 2 - It was thereafter, complainant (Respondent No.
2) filed complaint against Appellants for offences under Sections 420, 406,
419, 467, 468, 379, 465, 475, 120-B and 114 of Code - Appellants had
sought quashing of said FIR in petition which was dismissed by High Court -
Hence, present appeal - Whether impugned proceedings initiated against
Appellants liable to be quashed.
Facts:
Appellants had filed a complaint for an offence under Section 138 of the
Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 alleging that cheque issued by
Respondent No. 2, was dishonoured on presentation with the remarks that
the account closed. It was thereafter, the complainant (Respondent No. 2)
filed a complaint against the Appellants for offences under Sections 420,
406, 419, 467, 468, 379, 465, 475, 120-B and 114 of Indian Penal Code.
The Appellants had sought quashing of the said FIR in a petition which was
dismissed by the High Court. The Respondent No. 2 had alleged that three
cheques were misplaced along with letter heads, rubber stamps and other
important documents from the office of the Company and one of the
cheques had been used by the Appellants which was dishonoured on
presentation. Therefore, the Appellants had been rightly facing the
prosecution of the offences as mentioned in the FIR.
Held, while disposing off the appeal:
(i) The issue in both the complaints pertains to cheque which was said to
be from the cheque book of the Company of which Respondent No. 2 was
the officer. The Appellants rely upon the said cheque in a complaint for an
offence under Section 138 of the NI Act whereas the Respondent No. 2-
complainant alleges that said cheque along with two other cheques had

11-08-2020 (Page 1 of 3) www.manupatra.com Symbiosis Law School

been misplaced which were used by the Appellants fraudulently. [7]
(ii) The complaint filed by the Appellants under Section 138 of the NI Act
was earlier in point of time. The complaint filed by Respondent No. 2 was
more than two years later. Since the issue in both the cases revolves
around the same cheque, therefore, instead of quashing the FIR, the ends
of justice would meet if proceedings arising out of FIR were transferred to
the Court of Judicial Magistrate, where the proceedings of other complaint
under Section 138 of the NI Act were pending so that the complaint filed by
the Appellants and the proceedings arising out of FIR alleged by
Respondent No. 2 were decided together to avoid contradictory judgments
and to facilitate the issues which were common in both. [8]
JUDGMENT
Hemant Gupta, J.
1 . The present appeal is directed against an order passed by the High Court of
Gujarat on 11th December, 2017 whereby the petition for quashing of FIR No. 3 of
2007 registered at PS Mehsana for offence punishable Under Sections 420, 406, 419,
467, 468, 379, 465, 475, 120-B and 114 of the Indian Penal Code, 18601 was
dismissed.
2 . The Appellants had filed a complaint for an offence Under Section 138 of the
Negotiable Instrument Act, 18812 alleging that cheque No. 567889 dated 1st March,
2005 in the sum of Rs. 4,50,000/- was issued by Respondent No. 2, which was
dishonoured on presentation with the remarks that the account closed on 28th May,
2005. A complaint bearing private criminal case No. 33537 of 2006 was filed by
Appellant No. 2 in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Surat on 26th July, 2005.
3. It is thereafter, the complainant (Respondent No. 2) filed a complaint against the
Appellants for offences Under Sections 420, 406, 419, 467, 468, 379, 465, 475, 120-
B and 114 of Indian Penal Code bearing Criminal Case No. 9490 of 2008 on 17th
October, 2007. The learned Magistrate forwarded the said complaint to the Police in
terms of Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 19733. FIR No. 3 of 2007,
as mentioned above, was lodged on the basis of such order.
4 . The Appellants had sought quashing of the said FIR in a petition Under Section
482 of the Code which was dismissed by the High Court. The Respondent No. 2 had
alleged that three cheques bearing Nos. 567888, 567889 and 567890 were misplaced
along with letter heads, rubber stamps and other important documents from the
office of the Company and one of the cheques had been used by the Appellants which
was dishonoured on presentation. Therefore, the Appellants have been rightly facing
the prosecution of the offences as mentioned in the FIR.
5 . The stand of the Appellants is that such cheque was given to them along with
letter dated 25th November, 2002 in view of the fact that the Company had not
issued shares for which the Appellants had contributed a sum of Rs. 4,50,000/-. The
cheque in question was issued since the shares could not be issued, therefore,
cheque was issued payable after a long period.
6. No one has put in appearance on behalf of Respondent No. 2 even though served.
We have heard learned Counsel for the parties.

11-08-2020 (Page 2 of 3) www.manupatra.com Symbiosis Law School

7. We find that the issue in both the complaints pertains to cheque No. 567889 which
was said to be from the cheque book of the Company of which Respondent No. 2 is
the officer. The Appellants rely upon the said cheque in a complaint for an offence
Under Section 138 of the NI Act whereas the Respondent No. 2-complainant alleges
that said cheque along with two other cheques had been misplaced which were used
by the Appellants fraudulently.
8. The complaint filed by the Appellants Under Section 138 of the NI Act is earlier in
point of time. The complaint filed by Respondent No. 2 is more than two years later.
Since the issue in both the cases revolves around the same cheque, therefore, we
find that instead of quashing the FIR No. 3 of 2007, the ends of justice would meet if
proceedings arising out of FIR No. 3 of 2007 are transferred to the Court of Judicial
Magistrate, Surat, where the proceedings of other complaint Under Section 138 of the
NI Act are pending so that the complaint filed by the Appellants and the proceedings
arising out of FIR alleged by Respondent No. 2 are decided together to avoid
contradictory judgments and to facilitate the issues which are common in both.
9 . Consequently, the appeal is disposed of with the direction that the proceedings
arising out of FIR No. 3 of 2007 PS Mehsana shall stand transferred to the Court of
Judicial Magistrate, Surat where the proceedings of complaint No. 33537 of 2006 is
pending. Both the cases shall be heard and decided together.
10. The parties are directed to appear before the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Surat
on 16th March, 2020 for further proceedings in accordance with law.

1 for short, 'IPC'

2 for short, 'NI Act'
3 for short, 'Code'

© Manupatra Information Solutions Pvt. Ltd.

11-08-2020 (Page 3 of 3) www.manupatra.com Symbiosis Law School