TR.P.(CRL.)/20/2017 of M/S MIC ELECTRONICS LTDS Vs STATE OF DELHI & ANR

$~18-20*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

TR.P.(CRL.) 18/2017 & Crl.M.A. 7467/2017

M/S MIC ELECTRONIC LTD

..... PetitionerThroughMr.Vikas Gupta, Adv. with Mr.VipinKalra and Mr.Sahil Sharma, Advs.

versus

STATE OF DELHI & ANR

..... RespondentsThroughMr.Tarang Srivastava, APP for State.None for respondent No.2.

TR.P.(CRL.) 19/2017 & Crl.M.A. 7468/2017

M/S MIC ELECTRONICS LTD

..... PetitionerThroughMr.Vikas Gupta, Adv. with Mr.VipinKalra and Mr.Sahil Sharma, Advs.

versus

STATE OF DELHI & ANR

..... Respondents

ThroughMr.Tarang Srivastava, APP for State.None for respondent No.2.

+TR.P.(CRL.) 20/2017 & Crl.M.A. 7469/2017

M/S MIC ELECTRONICS LTD

..... PetitionerThroughMr.Vikas Gupta, Adv. with Mr.VipinKalra and Mr.Sahil Sharma, Advs.

versus

STATE OF DELHI & ANR

..... Respondents

ThroughMr.Tarang Srivastava, APP for State.None for respondent No.2.

CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD GOEL

O R R%29.08.2017

1.Despite service of the notice, none has appeared on behalf of therespondent No.2. Respondent No.2 was served for 19[th]July, 2017 but noneappeared on behalf of it on the said date.No adverse order was passedagainst the respondent No.2.

2.Even today none has appeared on behalf of the respondent No.2.

3.The petitioner seeks transfer of three criminal complaints bearingNo.326/1, 41/2015 and 327/1 pending before the Court of Sh.Surjit Saurabh,learned MM, Patiala House Court, Delhi, to the Court of Ms.VasundharaAzad, learned MM, South East, Saket, Delhi.

4.Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner companyhad taken loan of Rs.450 lac from the respondent No.2 company in the year2010 and certain chequesissued by the petitionercompany weredishonoured. Initially, the respondent No.3 had filed three complaints underSection 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 against the petitionerherein which are now pending before the Court of Ms.Vasundhara Azad,learned MM, South East, Saket, Delhi.

5.Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that subsequent to filing ofthe above three complaints pending before the Court of Ms.VasundharaAzad, learned MM, South East, Saket, Delhi, the respondent No.2 filed thethree complaints in question arising out of the same transaction on the basis

of other cheques issued by the petitioner herein which were dishonoured inthe Court of Sh.Surjit Saurabh, learned MM, Patiala House Court, Delhi.Learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the judgment of the ApexCourt in Damodar S. Prabhu v. Sayed Babalal H., 2010 (2) JCC (NI)178. Para 16 of the said judgment reads as under:

“16.We are also in agreement with the learnedAttorney General’s suggestions for controlling thefiling of multiple complaints that are relatable to thesame transaction. It was submitted that complaints arebeing increasingly filed in multiple jurisdictions in avexatiousmannerwhichcausestremendousharassment and prejudice to the drawers of the cheque.For instance, in the same transaction pertaining to aloan taken on an instalment basis to be repaid inequated monthly instalments, several cheques are takenwhich are dated for each monthly instalment and uponthe dishonour of each of such cheques, differentcomplaints are being filed in different Courts whichmay also have jurisdiction in relation to the complaint.In light of this submission, we direct that it should bemandatory for the complainant to disclose that no othercomplaint has been filed in any other Court in respectof the same transaction. Such disclosure should bemade on sworn affidavit which should accompanythe complaint filed under Section 200 of the Cr.P.C. Ifit is found that such multiple complaints have beenfiled, orders for transfer of the complaint to the firstCourt should be given, generally speaking, by the HighCourt after imposing heavy costs on the complainantfor resorting to such practice.These directionsshould be given effect prospectively.”Attorney General’s suggestions for controlling thefiling of multiple complaints that are relatable to thesame transaction. It was submitted that complaints arebeing increasingly filed in multiple jurisdictions in avexatiousmannerwhichcausestremendousharassment and prejudice to the drawers of the cheque.For instance, in the same transaction pertaining to aloan taken on an instalment basis to be repaid inequated monthly instalments, several cheques are takenwhich are dated for each monthly instalment and uponthe dishonour of each of such cheques, differentcomplaints are being filed in different Courts whichmay also have jurisdiction in relation to the complaint.In light of this submission, we direct that it should bemandatory for the complainant to disclose that no othercomplaint has been filed in any other Court in respectof the same transaction. Such disclosure should bemade on sworn affidavit which should accompanythe complaint filed under Section 200 of the Cr.P.C. Ifit is found that such multiple complaints have beenfiled, orders for transfer of the complaint to the firstCourt should be given, generally speaking, by the HighCourt after imposing heavy costs on the complainantfor resorting to such practice.These directionsshould be given effect prospectively.”

6.In the facts and circumstances of the case, to avoid the conflictingjudgment in the matters and for expeditious disposal of the cases, criminalcomplaints pending in the Court of Sh.Surjit Saurabh, learned MM, Patiala

House Court, Delhi, are withdrawn and are ordered to be transferred to theCourt of Ms.Vasundhara Azad, learned MM, South East, Saket, Delhi.

7.The petitions are disposed of.

8.Dasti.

AUGUST 29, 2017/jitender

VINOD GOEL, J.