SANJAY MOHINDRU Vs. ROHIT AGGARWAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Petitioner, Sanjay Mohindru, as Proprietor of M/s Enn Ess Enterprises, has filed the present petition under Section 407 read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for the transfer of the appeal bearing No. RBT 34 dated 27.10.2004/2008, filed by him against the Respondent, Rohit Aggarwal, Proprietor, M/s Aggarwal Medicos, from the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Hoshiarpur to the Court of competent jurisdiction at Jalandhar, and for clubbing the same with Criminal Appeal No. 44 dated 24.9.2010, filed by the Respondent and pending in the Court of Sessions Judge, Jalandhar.

(2.) The facts, as stated in the petition and relevant for the disposal of the present petition, are that there were transactions between the parties regarding the sale and purchase of medicines and both of them had been claiming the amount due to them from each other. The Respondent filed criminal complaint against the Petitioner under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881(hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), on the ground that for the discharge of his liability, he issued a cheque of 3,60,000/ -, which on presentment to his banker, was dishonoured and that he failed to pay that amount. After the trial, he was convicted and he has preferred the above said appeal. Similarly, he filed a Criminal Complaint under Section 138 of the Act against the Respondent, in which he was convicted and he preferred the appeal, which is pending in the Court of Sessions Judge, Jalandhar. In fact, in both the complaints, the matter is essentially the same and those are in the nature of cross cases and the same arise from a series of transactions between them, as both had been claiming that the debts were due to them. Being the cross cases, both the appeal are required to be decided by the same Court.

(3.) IT has been submitted by counsel for the Petitioner that there were transactions between the parties and accounts were settled and the dispute had arisen out of the settlement of those accounts and, as such, the matter involved in both the complaints is similar and, therefore, the appeals arising from those complaints be decided by the same court.