HAMESH V SHAH Vs. RAJENDRA D MEHTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners are businessmen. At the request of Respondents certain financial aid was given by the petitioners. The total sum advanced by the Petitioners to the Respondents is Rs.25 lakhs. 3 Post dated cheques were given. All three have bounced. The Petitioners were constrained to file Criminal Complaint Nos.1391 of 1994, 3927 of 1994 and 3928 of 1994. Complaint Nos.1391 of 1994 and 3928 of 1994 are filed against R.D.Mehta and Complaint No.3927 of 1994 is filed against M.K.Jain. In all these complaints both the accused gave an undertaking to the Court that the said cheques will be honoured on the due date as claims were admitted by them. The cheques given in pursuance of the said undertaking also bounced. Inspite of making the aforesaid affidavits, the Respondents made applications before the Sessions Judge for transfer of the cases. These applications were dismissed by the Sessions Judge after recording reasoned order and disbelieving the allegations made against the learned Magistrate. Thereafter the Respondents filed transfer applications in this Court. These applications have also been dismissed by this Court on 28th October, 1996.The petitioners had filed contempt applications before the learned Magistrate. Inspite of the aforesaid facts the learned Magistrate seems to have taken a lenient view and has not taken any proceedings against the respondents for contempt of Court.

(2.) IN my view, this is a fit case where the respondents ought to be proceeded against for contempt of court. It is a settled proposition of law that an undertaking given in Court, if breached amounts to contempt of Court. Be that as it may, at this stage Counsel for the petitioner states that he would be satisfied with a direction that the learned Magistrate may decide the aforesaid cases expeditiously. This request seems to be natural as the petitioners are interested in recovering their money rather than criminal prosecution. It would also appear that on the basis of the affidavits, the respondents would have hardly any defence to the criminal complaints. In view of the aforesaid facts, the learned Magistrate is requested to decide all the three criminal complaints within a period of 90 days of the receipt of this order. The learned Magistrate is requested to ignore the aforesaid observations when deciding the complaints on merits. All the writ petitions are disposed of in the aforesaid terms. Writ to go down forthwith.