SMTI. SARMISTHA DEBNATH (CHAKRABORTY) Vs. THE STATE OF TRIPURA REPRESENTED BY THE MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS AND SRI BRAJALAL BANIK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY means of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for stay of further proceedings of case no. N.I. 75 of 2011 pending before the trial Court and has also prayed that the Court below be directed to try the case filed by the respondent under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (hereinafter referred to as the N.I. Act) along with the case, investigation of which is going on, on the basis of a complaint filed by the petitioner. Briefly stated, the admitted facts of the case are that the respondent no. 2 herein was the duly constituted attorney of the petitioner. The case of the respondent is that both the petitioner and respondent no. 2 had entered into some business dealings and when the business dealings were terminated, the accounts were settled and thereafter, the petitioner agreed to pay a sum of Rs. 23,00,000/ - by cheque to the respondent. Since this cheque was dishonoured, the respondent no. 2 initiated proceedings under section 138 of the N.I. Act against the petitioner.

(2.) ON the other hand, the case of the petitioner is that nothing was owed by the petitioner to this respondent no. 2. According to the petitioner when the respondent no. 2 was the attorney, he was in possession of certain cheques signed by the petitioner and after the power of attorney was terminated, the respondent no. 2 had misused one of the said cheques and had wrongly issued a cheque of Rs. 23 lakhs in favour of his own company, M/s. Sreema Agency. The cheque which is allegedly dated 30 -04 -2011 was presented by the respondent no. 2 to the bank on 05 -05 -2011 and was returned by the bank on the same day with the report that the cheque could not be honoured because of insufficient funds. Thereafter, the respondent no. 2 issued a demand notice on 16 -05 -2011 to the petitioner herein asking her to make payment stating the facts of dishonour of the cheque. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an FIR on 25 -05 -2011 alleging therein that the respondent herein had misused the cheque which he was given as attorney of the petitioner herein. It is not disputed that the N.I. Act case is at the stage of recording evidence whereas in the complaint filed by the petitioner, investigation is still going on.

(3.) THERE can be no quarrel with this proposition. I am also of the view that in this case also though the offences may be different, the genesis is the same, that is whether the cheque was actually issued for discharge of a liability or whether the respondent no. 2 misused a cheque which was handed over to him by the petitioner. Having held so, this Court cannot lose sight of the fact that the case filed by the petitioner is still at the stage of investigation. The question that arises is whether proceedings in a pending case can be stayed only on the basis of an investigation being carried out by the police. What will be the result of the investigation or when will the investigation end is not something which this Court can speculate about.