G SRI HARI Vs. NANDKISHORE LAHOTI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner is the Managing Director of M/s. Srihari Mills Private Limited, Coimbatore, which has business transactions with the 1st respondent in his capacity as the partner of Laxmi Venkatesh Industries, a partnership firm at Warangal. In connection with those business transactions, petitioner issued some cheques to the 1st respondent, which were dishonoured for want of funds. Thereafter 1st respondent after issuing the statutory notice under Section 138 of Nagotiable Instruments Act (the Act), filed a private complaint against the petitioner and another who is the Chairman of Srihari Mills Private Limited, for offences under Section 138 of the Act and Section 420, I.P.C. The learned Magistrate referred the said complaint to the police, Geesukonda P.S. under Section 156(3), Cr.P.C. for investigation and the same was registered as Crime No. 152 of 1995 under Section 420, I.P.C. and Section 138 of the Act. Prior to that during the absence of 1st respondent, the Manager of Laxmi Venkatesh Industries gave a complaint to Geesukonda police, in connection with the dishonour of the very same cheques issued by the petitioner on behalf of Srihari Mills for offences under Section 420, I.P.C. and Section 138 of the Act, which was registered as Crime No. 127 of 1995. Basing on which the police, after investigation, filed a charge sheet in C.C. No. 326 of 1999.

(2.) Before the police filing charge-sheet in C.C. No. 326 of 1999, petitioner filed W.P. No. 15427 of 1996 before this Court to quash the F.I.R. in Crime No. 127 of 1995 of Geesukonda P.S., on the ground that the police have no jurisdiction to investigate into an offence u/S. 138 of the Act, impleading the 1st respondent as 2nd respondent thereto, which was disposed of by my learned brother B. Sudershan Reddy, J. on 2-9-1996 with the following observation : It is stated by the 2nd respondent in the counter-affidavit that during his absence while he was away in Rajasthan, his Manager preferred a complaint on 2-12-1995 before the Assistant Superintendent of Police, Warangal and the same was forwarded to the S.H.O., which is resulted in registration of Crime No. 127 of 1995 of the said Police Station. The subject-matter of investigation by the same S.H.O. in Crime No. 127 of 1995 and the private complaint forwarded by the III Additional Munsif Magistrate, Warangal is one and the same. In such a view of the matter, the complaint preferred by the Manager of the 2nd respondent on 2-12-1995 has really become superfluous. In such view of the matter, there shall be a direction to the 1st respondent to complete the investigation pursuant to the complaint preferred to him by the III Additional Munsif Magistrate, Warangal in S.R. No. 11421 of 1995, dated 7-12-1995 and submit a report to the said Court as expeditiously as possible and thereafter the proceedings on the file of the III Additional Munsif Magistrate, Warangal shall go on in accordance with law. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs." Subsequent to the above order the S.H.O., Geesukonda P.S., sent a final report in Crime No. 152 of 1995 on 21-8-1999 referring the case as a mistake of fact on the ground that the subject-matter of Crime No. 152 of 1995 and the subject-matter of Crime No. 127 of 1995 is the same. Thereupon, 1st respondent filed Crl. M.P. No. 2981 of 1999 under Section 191, Cr.P.C. to reject the final report and to take the complaint on file after recording his sworn statement. By the order dated 29-9-1999 the learned Magistrate recorded the sworn statement of the complainant and took the complaint on file as C.C. No. 803 of 1999 under Section 138 of the Act and issued summons to the petitioner. This petition is filed to quash the said complaint.

(3.) The contention of Sri C. Padmanabha Reddy, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, is that since the police filed a charge-sheet for the same offence earlier, question of the Magistrate taking cognizance of a second complaint for the same offence on a private complaint does not arise, and so the proceedings in C.C. No. 803 of 1999 are liable to be quashed, moreso because the complaint is barred by time. The contention of Sri Mandhani, the learned counsel for the 1st respondent, is that in view of the order in W.P. No. 15427 of 1996, this petition is not maintainable and in any event in view of Section 210, Cr.P.C. both cases can be tried together as held in Tella Zedson v. Chaganti Kista Rao, (1990) 2 Andh LT 674. Relying on Ganesh Sukhlal Joshi v. M.A. Bharati, (1996) 3 Crimes 402 (Bombay); D. Ramamoorthy v. K. J. Duraisamy, (1996) 1 Andh LT (Cri) 152 (Madras) and also a Division Bench Judgment of this Court in Appu Ramani v. The State, (1993) 1 Andh LT 370 : (1993 Cri LJ 1974) he contended that the relevant date for computing the period of limitation is the date on which the complaint is filed into Court, and not the date on which the cognizance of the offence is taken, the complaint cannot be said to be barred by time.