Satish Kumar 2014.03.12 11:14 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc.
No.M-7869 of 2014 Date of Decision : March 04, 2014 M/s Wool Tex Fabrics Private Limited and others ....Petitioners Versus M/s Paramount Rubber Industries .....Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE T.P.S.MANN Present : Mr.Amit Jhanji, Advocate T.P.S.MANN, J.
Prayer made in the present petition filed by the petitioners under Section 407 read with Section 482 Cr.P.C.is for transfer of Criminal Complaint No.760/2 dated 21.12.2007 titled Paramount Rubber Industries through its proprietor versus M/s Wool Tex Fabrics Private Limited pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Faridabad to some other Court of competent jurisdiction, either at Chandigarh or Gurgaon.
According to the petitioneRs.they are facing trial in the aforementioned criminal complaint filed by the respondent under Sections 138/142 read with Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and Sections 420/422/34 IPC.
In the said complaint, the statements of the petitioners were recorded by the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Faridabad under Section 263(g) Crl.
Misc.No.M-7869 of 2014 -2- Cr.P.C.In their statements, petitioners No.3 and 4 denied their signatures on the cheque.
Subsequently, it transpired that there was clerical error in the said order wherein instead of denying the issuance of the said cheque, it was mentioned that the petitioners admitted the issuance of the said cheques.
Further, from a bare perusal of the said statements, it was apparent that the mistake was nothing but clerical as it seemed to be a print out of the statement recorded in another complaint.
The petitioners immediately moved an application under Section 263(g) read with Section 362 Cr.P.C.for correcting/amending the statement of petitioners No.3 and 4.
The complainant filed its reply.
Vide order dated 13.12.2013, the Magistrate dismissed the application of the petitioners by holding that the same was not maintainable and, further, that the criminal Court had no power to review or recall its own order.
The said order was challenged in revision but to of no avail.
It was further challenged in this Court by filing Crl.
Misc.
No.M-5535 of 2014 but the said petition was dismissed as having been withdrawn with liberty to the petitioners to take all the pleas available to them at the appropriate stage.
It is also stated that the petitioners had earlier filed a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C.for quashing of the criminal complaint which petition was dismissed on 10.10.2012 as having been withdrawn with liberty to the petitioners to take all the pleas available to them during the trial.
During the pendency of the said petition, this Court vide order dated Crl.
Misc.No.M-7869 of 2014 -3- 11.1.2012 had stayed the proceedings pending against the petitioners in the trial Court.
Accordingly, after the disposal of the said petition, the trial commenced before the Magistrate.
On 13.11.2013, when the counsel for the petitioners requested for a date on the ground that the father of petitioner No.2 had died, the trial Court paid no heed to the same and adjourned the matter to 25.11.2013, subject to costs of Rs.1,000/-.
On 25.11.2013, petitioner No.2 could not appear before the trial Court as he was away to Haridwar for performing last rites of his father.
Accordingly, a request was made for an adjournment.
However, the trial Court observed that there was no justifiable reason to grant adjournment for defence evidence and, accordingly, the oral defence was closed.
Subsequently, another application was filed by the petitioners under Section 315 read with Section 311 Cr.P.C.on 30.11.2013.
Vide order dated 13.12.2013, the trial Court declined the application under Section 263(g) Cr.P.C.whereas the application moved under Section 315 read with Section 311 Cr.P.C.was allowed, subject to payment of Rs.2,000/- as costs.
The matter was adjourned to 3.1.2004.
On 3.1.2004, the proxy counsel appearing for the petitioners informed the trial Court that petitioner No.2 could not be examined as the counsel representing him had not come and a short adjournment was sought but the trial Court while adjourning the matter passed a detailed order by making adveRs.remarks against the petitioneRs.It is also Crl.
Misc.No.M-7869 of 2014 -4- submitted that the petitioners had filed an application for joint trial of the present complaint with a similar complaint No.759/2 of 2007 but the same was also dismissed by the trial Court on 22.1.2014.
Though the present complaint was fixed before the trial Court for today, i.e.4.3.2014 but as there is a wedding in the family of the petitioners fixed for 3.3.2014 at Jammu, therefore, it was not possible for them to attend the Court proceedings.
Accordingly, a request was made on their behalf on the last date of hearing, i.e.17.2.2014 but the same was declined and the matter was listed for 4.3.2014.
Pleading that the trial Court is biased against the petitioneRs.they filed the present petition under Section 407 read with Section 482 Cr.P.C.for transfer of the complaint filed against them by the respondent from the trial Court at Faridabad to some other Court of competent jurisdiction either at Chandigarh or Gurgaon.
Having heard counsel for the petitioners and perusing the record of the petition, this Court is of the considered view that the sole purpose of filing the present petition is nothing but to delay the conclusion of the trial.
The complaint in question was filed on 20.12.2007.
For a period of about nine months, i.e.from 11.1.2012 when this Court had stayed the proceedings before the trial Court, to 10.10.2012 when this Court finally disposed of the petition filed by the petitioners for quashing of the complaint, the trial could not proceed.
Subsequently, the stage for examining of the accused Crl.
Misc.No.M-7869 of 2014 -5- has reached.
At that stage, the petitioners are coming up with one excuse or the other for seeking adjournment.
Merely, because the father of petitioner No.2 had died was no ground to seek adjournment of the trial.
Despite the same, the request was accepted but it was subject to costs of Rs.1,000/-.
On the next date, request for an adjournment was made on the ground that the said petitioner had to proceed for Haridwar for performing the last rites of his father.
On noticing the fact that unnecessary adjournments were being sought by the accused, especially when the matter was an old one which had commenced in the year 2007, the trial Court was justified in not granting any further opportunity to the petitioners for their evidence and, accordingly, closed the same.
The matter was adjourned only for the purpose of documentary evidence, if any, and for final arguments.
In view of the above, no case is made out for transfer of the criminal complaint in question.
The petition is, accordingly, dismissed.
( T.P.S.MANN ) March 04, 2014 JUDGE satish