WARYAM SINGH Vs. JAMMU ESS LEE FINANCE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two petitions raise akin and analogies issues and therefore are taken up together for adjudication.

(2.) At the outset it would be worthwhile to mention that before filing of the aforesaid two petitions, the petitioner herein filed two 561-A CrPC petitions bearing Nos. 650/2017, MP No. 01/2017 and 651/2017 titled as "Waryam Singh Vs. M/s Chanda Hire Purchase Finance Jammu and "Waryam Singh Vs. M/s Jammu ESS IEE Finance Pvt. Ltd."before this court on the premise that complaints bearing File Nos. 173/complaint and 174/complaint had been filed by complainant / respondent herein under Section 138 Negotiable Instrument Act (herein after for short NI Act) and Section 420 RPC on 16.03.2016 before the Court of Special Mobile Magistrate, 13th Finance Commission, Jammu, (herein after for short trial court) wherein cognizance was taken on 16.03.2016 and consequently summons issued against the accused / petitioner herein. In the said petitions, petitioner questioned the maintainability of complaints as also cognizance order dated 16-03-2016 as also orders dated 01.07.2017 and 14.08.2017 as well passed by the trial court. The aforesaid petitions came to be disposed of by this court separately after hearing appearing counsel for the parties on 31.05.2018, whereby order of cognizance dated 16.03.2016 passed in both the complaints came to be quashed allowing the trial court to pass fresh order in accordance with the law. Significantly this court did neither render any decision qua the other grounds of challenge/ points raised nor granted any relief other than above in the aforesaid petitions. Keeping in view the above position, the facts those emerge from both the above petitions now require to be delineated. CRM(M) No. 483/2019

(3.) Petitioner in the instant petition has sought following reliefs: - "Petition u/s 561-A CrPC for quashing the judgment and order dated 25.05.2019 passed by the Learned Principal Sessions Judge, Jammu whereby the revision petition has been rejected against the judgment and order of Learned Special Mobile Magistrate (Sub-Judge 13 FC) Jammu in File no. 174/complaint on 17.12.2018 where under fresh cognizance has been taken of complaint u/s 138 Negotiable Instrument Act DOI 16.03.2016 which is contrary to the judgement of the Hon'ble High Court of J&K in petition 561-A No. 651/2017 holding the cognizance taken of complaint on 16.03.2016 on unsigned affidavit purportedly filed as a preliminary statement bad in law and quashed with further order that permission granted to rectify defect by permitting the placement of the affidavit on 22.4.2017 after the expiry of approximately one year from the date when the court had already issued the process at a subsequent point of time by virtue of order dated 1.7.2017 was totally perverse and impermissible in law thereby quashing the order of cognizance and the proceedings conducted on the basis thereof. For quashment of the order of taking cognizance dated 17.12.2018 by the trial court impugned in the revision petition along with the proceedings on the complaint being against law and procedure, by wrongful exercise of jurisdiction."