Two complaints to attract Section 420 of the I.P.C cannot be filed on the same set of facts under the Negotiable Instruments Act

The Bombay High Court has ruled that two separate complaints cannot be filed based on the same set of facts, one under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and another under the Negotiable Instruments Act. This decision clarifies that a single incident of a dishonoured cheque, which might appear to fall under both laws, should only lead to one prosecution. The court's aim is to prevent multiplicity of proceedings for the same alleged offence.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.5547 OF 2004

1. Shri Gurbachan Singh }
Aged about 65 years, C.M.D. }
M/s. Darshan Oils Ltd., Aligarh }
(UP) Resident of Surjeet House, }
Marris Road, Aligarh (UP). }

2. Shri Balwant Singh, }
Aged about 63 years, }
Director, Darshan Oils Ltd., }
Resident of Surjeet House, }
Marris Road, Aligarh (UP). }

3. Shri Daljeet Singh, }
Aged about 60 years, }
Director, Darshan Oils Ltd., }
Resident of Surjeet House, }
Marris Road, Aligarh (UP) }

4. Shri Satendra Singh }
Aged about 58 years, }
Director, Darshan Oils Ltd., }
Resident of Surjeet House, }
Marris Road, Aligarh (UP). } …. Applicants.

Versus

1. Shri Shankar K. Mathod }
Aged 52 years, Occ.: Business, }
Proprietor of M/s. Eskay Enterprises, }
having office at 2/40, Arihant Complex, }
Purna Village, Bhiwani, Dist.: Thane, }
Maharashtra and residing at }
Kannamwar Nagar-II, Building No.176, }
Room No.6044, Vikhroli }
(East), Mumbai 4083. }

2. State of Maharashtra } …. Respondents. 

Ms. Aarti Deodhar a/w Mr. Virendra Pethe i/b. Mr. B.D. Joshi for the

Applicants.
Mr. Amit Palkar, APP for the Respondent No.2-State.

CORAM : A. S. GADKARI, J.

 DATE : 8th APRIL, 2021.

ORAL JUDGMENT :-

1. By the present Application under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code (for short, “Cr.P.C.”), the applicants/original accused have prayed for quashing and setting aside Criminal Case No.144/Misc/2001 (renumbered as 81/S/2003), pending on the file of learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 34th Court, at Vikhroli, Mumbai.

2. Record reveals that, Respondent No.1 has been duly served in the matter. The present Application was listed on board for final hearing on the March 2021, 24th March 2021 and 6th April 2021, when none appeared for the Respondent No.1. In order to grant an opportunity to the Respondent No.1, present Application was therefore adjourned on the aforestated three dates and listed today for final hearing. Today also, none appears for the Respondent No.1.

3. Heard Ms. Aarti Deodhar i/b. Mr. B.D. Joshi for the Applicants and Mr. Palkar, learned A.P.P. for the Respondent No.2-State. Perused record.

4. Record discloses that, Respondent No.1 had earlier filed a Criminal Case No.99/S/2000 in the Court of Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 34th Court at Vikhroli, Mumbai, under Section 138 read with Sections 141 and 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short, “the N.I. Act”), against the applicant Nos.1 to 3 and other two accused (companies), i.e. M/s.Darshan Oils Ltd. and M/s.Darshan Vanaspati. It was the case of the Respondent No.1 that, his Company, namely, M/s Eskay Enterprises, sold and supplied R.B.D Palmolein Oil to the accused therein and raised invoices bearing Nos.590, 618, 619, 620, 621, 696 and 697 through the commission agent namely, Shri Kiran H. Shah. That, the applicants vide its letter dated 22nd September 1999 addressed to the said commission agent Shri Kiran H. Shah confirmed delivery and informed that, they would clear the outstanding payment pertaining to the said supply of goods. That, the applicant No.3 in discharge of liability for payment of goods supplied by Respondent No.1 to M/s.Darshan Vanaspati (original Accused No.2), in his capacity as Director of M/s.Darshan Oils Ltd., issued a cheque bearing No.1731838 dated 6th November 1999 for an amount of Rs.42,16,517/- drawn on Canara Bank, Aligarh Main Branch in favour of the Respondent No.1. The said cheque was dishonoured on presentation with the Banker of Respondent No.1, namely, Canara Bank, Vikhroli, Mumbai – 83. The Canara Bank also issued a memo dated 14th January 2000 to the effect that the said cheque was dishonoured. The Respondent No.1 thereafter sent a statutory notice dated 3rd February 2000. As the applicant Nos.1 to 3 did not respond to the said notice within stipulated period as per the provisions of N.I. Act, the Respondent No.1 filed the aforestated complaint bearing No.99/S/2000 on 18th March 2000.

To know more in details find the attachment file