Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, a share broker operating as Radhika Investment at Latur, and respondent no.1, a client, were involved in multiple transactions resulting in dishonoured cheques. Respondent no.1 filed seven criminal complaints under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 against the petitioner. The complaints were lodged in different Magisterial Courts at Latur (STCC Nos. 1091/2010, 1468/2010, 154/2011, 592/2011, 1574/2011, 153/2012, and 646/2012) and all arose from the same underlying share business transaction. The petitioner first approached the Sessions Court, Latur, in Criminal M.A. No.35/2011, seeking consolidation of some of these cases. The Sessions Court allowed that application on 14.10.2011 and transferred STCC No.592/2011 to the 4th Judicial Magistrate First Class, where other cases were pending. However, when respondent no.1 filed subsequent complaints, the petitioner again moved the Sessions Court in Criminal M.A. No.21/2012 on 3.4.2012, requesting transfer of all pending cases to a single court. The Sessions Court rejected that application on 12.06.2012, observing that two cases before the 4th JMFC were part-heard. Aggrieved, the petitioner filed the present writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution and Section 407 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking to quash the Sessions Court's order and to direct transfer of all seven cases to one court. The petitioner argued that all cases were between the same parties and arose from the same transaction, and it would serve the interests of justice to have them tried together for consistency and to avoid multiplicity. Respondent no.1 resisted, contending that two cases were part-heard and transferring them would be improper. The High Court examined the matter and held that since all cases originated from a single transaction and involved identical parties, it was necessary to transfer them to one court for better appreciation of evidence and for the convenience of parties and witnesses. The court noted that the petitioner was not insisting on any particular court and that the earlier clubbing order had worked without issue. It concluded that the part-heard status did not preclude transfer because the cases were to be tried separately anyway. Accordingly, the High Court quashed the Sessions Court's order dated 12.06.2012, allowed the petition, and directed that the cases pending before the 8th, 9th, and 10th JMFC, Latur, be withdrawn and transferred to the 4th JMFC, Latur, for expeditious and separate disposal. The rule was made absolute.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure - Transfer of Cases - Clubbing of Complaints under Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Section 407; Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138; Constitution of India, Articles 226, 227 - The dispute involved seven cases under Section 138 NI Act filed by the respondent against the petitioner, all arising from the same share business transaction and between the same parties. The petitioner sought transfer of all cases to one court to avoid multiplicity and ensure better appreciation of evidence. The court held that for convenience of parties and witnesses and for ends of justice, the cases should be transferred to one court to be tried separately. Held, the writ petition is allowed and the cases from 8th, 9th, and 10th JMFC, Latur are transferred to 4th JMFC, Latur for expeditious trial. (Paras 10-12)
Issue of Consideration
Whether multiple criminal cases under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 pending before different courts and arising out of the same transaction between the same parties should be transferred to one court for trial?
Final Decision
Petition allowed. Order of Sessions Judge dated 12.06.2012 quashed and set aside. STCC No.153/2012 pending before 10th JMFC, STCC No.1574/2011 pending before 9th JMFC, and STCC No.646/2012 pending before 8th JMFC, Latur, directed to be withdrawn and transferred to 4th JMFC, Latur, to be tried separately in accordance with law, and hearing to be conducted expeditiously. Rule made absolute.
Law Points
- Transfer of criminal cases under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act arising from same transaction between same parties may be ordered to one court for convenience of parties and witnesses and for better appreciation of evidence under Section 407 of Code of Criminal Procedure and constitutional writ jurisdiction.
