SHESH NARAYAN MISHRA Vs. ANANT SINGH NETAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present criminal revision has been filed against the order dtd. 9/2/2024 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raipur, in an unregistered complaint case between Shesh Narayan Mishra Vs. PTI Madhav Rao Sapre Higher Secondary School, Raipur, whereby the complaint filed under Sec. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (in short, the NI Act) by the complainant/petitioner is dismissed holding that once the accused is being convicted or acquitted, he cannot be again convicted or acquitted for the same offence, as provided under Sec. 300 of CrPC and further since the present case has been filed after passing of final order in the previous case, the same is not maintainable and not worth liable for its registration.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that, the present petitioner/complainant had filed a complaint case against the respondent/accused under Sec. 138 of NI Act before the JMFC, Raipur vide complaint case No.2236 of 2018 with an allegation that in lieu of discharge of his liability, the respondent accused has given him a cheque dtd. 15/1/2018 amounting to Rs.3,00,000.00 bearing cheque number 536542 which was of the Bank of Baroda Raipur Branch. When the said cheque was deposited by the complainant in his bank account for its clearance, the same was dishonoured by the payee bank for want of sufficient fund in the account of respondent/accused on 20/3/2018. An intimation of dishonour of said cheque was received by the complainant on 22/3/2018. On 4/4/2018 a legal demand notice was served upon the respondent/accused by the complainant which was served upon him on 10/4/2018. When the respondent- accused failed to pay the amount of cheque despite receiving demand notice, a complaint case under Sec. 138 of NI Act was filed on 25/4/2018. The complaint case was registered and the respondent/accused person was summoned. After full fledged trial of the case, the JMFC vide its judgment dtd. 30/11/2023 has dismissed the complaint and has acquitted the respondent-accused holding that complaint was filed prior to completion of 15 days and therefore it was premature and is not maintainable.

(3.) On 15/12/2023 the complainant filed another complaint case under Sec. 138 of NI Act against the respondent before the JMFC Raipur with the averment that although the complaint case number 2236/2018 filed by the complainant has been dismissed holding premature, in view of judgment passed by the Supreme Court in case of Yogendra Pratap Singh Vs. Savitri Pandey and Another, 2014 (10) SCC 713, Gajanand Burange Vs. Laxmi Chand Goyal, 2022 SCC online SC 1711 and also the judgment passed by the Karnataka High Court in case of Nurandayya Vs. Sitaram (Criminal Revision Petition No.200074/19) and judgment passed Punjab and Haryana High Court in the matter of Yuvraj Agro Food Pvt. Ltd. and Others Vs. Mangat Ram Pawan Kumar (CRM-M No.26379 of 2016(O&M,) decided on 16/7/2019, the second complaint is maintainable as in Yogendra Pratap's case it was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that if the first complaint is dismissed as premature, the second complaint is still maintainable, subject to consideration of its limitation period. The second complaint filed by the complainant came up for hearing on 9/2/2024 and on the question of its registration, the trial court has considered the case and passed the order on 9/2/2024 whereby considering the provisions of Sec. 300 of CrPC, the complaint case is dismissed holding that the same is not maintainable and it is not worth liable for its registration which is under challenge in the present revision.