AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
S. Pujahari, JÂ
This application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing of the entire proceeding in G.R. Case No.2122 of 2007, pending in the
Court of the learned S.D.J.M., Panposh.
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel appearing for the State â€" opposite party no.2 through Video conferencing.
None participated in the hearing on behalf of the opposite party no.1. Perused the relevant papers on record.
The present petitioner no.2 filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short “the N.I. Actâ€) registered as
I.C.C. No.323 of 2007 before the learned S.D.J.M., Panposh against the present opposite party no.1 for dishonor of a cheque of Rs.1,00,000/- issued
by latter, and the said complaint case is subjudice. In the wake of launching of the prosecution as above, the opposite party no.1 filed a complaint
before the learned S.D.J.M., Panposh, registered as I.C.C. No.569 of 2007 alleging, inter-alia, that the present petitioner no.1 in connivance with the
present petitioner no.2 misutilized the blank cheque referred to above and cheated him. The complaint of the opposite party no.2 on being referred to
police under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. has been registered as F.I.R. No.324 dated 13.11.2007 in Plant Site Police Station, Rourkela, corresponding to
G.R. Case No.2122 of 2007 under Sections 420/406/34 of IPC in the court of the S.D.J.M., Panposh and the present petitioners have been arraigned
as accused therein. In the above backdrop, the petitioners have approached this Court to invoke the power of this Court for quashment of the said
proceeding.
It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the proceeding initiated by the opposite party no.1 is thoroughly misconceived
having no sanction of law, and the same being a counter blast to the prosecution (I.C.C. No.323 of 2007) legally instituted by the petitioners, they will
be grossly prejudiced if the proceeding in G.R. Case No.2122 of 2007 is allowed to continue.
Needless to mention that since the complaint case filed by the petitioners is subjudice, it is open for the opposite party no.1 (accused therein) to
agitate and substantiate his defence plea, if any, in the said proceeding instead of filing a separate complaint. A plain reading of his complaint which
has been treated as F.I.R. in the G.R. Case referred to above, also does not reveal any cause of action distinct from his probable defence plea open to
be taken in the complaint case filed against him under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. In the opinion of this Court, continuance of the proceeding of the
G.R. case initiated at the instance of the opposite party no.1 would not only lead to multiplicity of proceedings but also would amount to abuse of the
process of the Court causing prejudice to the petitioners.
Hence, the CRLMC stands allowed. The proceeding in G.R. Case No.2122 of 2007 pending in the Court of the S.D.J.M., Panposh is quashed.
L.C.R. along with a copy of this order be sent back forthwith.
As the restrictions due to resurgence of COVID-19 situation are continuing, learned counsel for the parties may utilize a printout of the order available
in the High Court’s website, at par with certified copy, subject to attestation by the concerned advocate, in the manner prescribed vide Court’s
Notice No.4587, dated 25th March, 2020 as modified by Court’s Notice No.4798, dated 15th April, 2021.