KISHOREBHAI JAGJIVANDAS - Applicant(s) Versus STATE OF GUJARAT & 1 - Respondent(s) ========================================================= Appearance :
MR HARNISH V DARJI for Applicant(s) : 1, MR.H M.PATEL for Applicant(s) : 1, MR KP RAVAL, APP for Respondent(s) : 1, UNSERVED-REFUSED (N) for Respondent(s) : 2, ========================================================= CORAM :
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE J.C.UPADHYAYA Date : 25/01/2012 ORAL COMMON ORDER :
Heard Mr. Darji, Ld.
Advocate for the applicants.
2. In all the above referred Criminal Misc. Applications, three criminal complaints, namely Criminal Case Nos. 2694/2001, 2695/2001 and 2696/2001 registered for the commission of offence punishable under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act [NI Act], are requested to be quashed and set aside. The applicant is original accused no. 2 in all the three cases. Three private criminal complaints came to be filed in the Court of Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate, Ahmedabad on 01/11/2011 and on the same day, processes were issued against the original two accused including the applicant - original accused no. 2 for the offence punishable under section 138 of the NI Act. Thereafter, as submitted by Mr. Darji, Ld. Advocate for the applicants, accused no. 2 appeared before the concerned Court, his plea was recorded and the cases were posted for recording of the evidence of the complainant. As submitted, the complainant filed his affidavit as a part of his examination-in-chief and he was elaborately cross-examined by both the accused persons including the applicant. His cross-examination was over on 20/10/2010 and thereafter, in the year 2011 these applications are filed under section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code [Cr. P.C.] to quash those criminal complaints.
3. In the above view of the matter, when the trial Court has already recorded evidence of the complainant and the matter is pending for further evidence of the complainant, if any, it would not be just and proper for this Court now to exercise powers vested in this Court under section 482 of the Cr. P.C for the simple reason that once the part of the evidence is recorded before the trial Court, the trial Court shall decide these cases on the basis of appreciation of evidence that was led before it and that will be led before it. It is clear that despite the fact that the applicant - original accused no. 2 was served with the summons issued by the trial Court in the year 2001, the instant applications came to be filed in the year 2011 and that too after the oral evidence of the respondent no. 2 - original complainant was already over.
4. In the above view of the matter, these applications do not require any admission and deserve dismissal.
5. It is hereby made clear that no merits are touched in the instant order and the trial Court shall be at liberty to decide the three criminal complaints in accordance with law, uninfluenced by any observation made by this Court in this order. Since all the three criminal cases are of the year 2011, appropriate direction is required to be issued to the trial Court.
6. For the foregoing reasons, the applications stand dismissed. The trial Court is directed to expedite the trial of the above mentioned three criminal cases and to dispose them of as expeditiously as possible, preferably within three months from the date of receipt of communication of this order to the trial Court.
(J.C.UPADHYAYA, J.) * Pansala.
Top