(Dipak Misra and Prafulla C. Pant, JJ.)
V.S. Reddy and Sons ____________________________ Appellant(s);
v.
Muthyala Ramalinga Reddy and Another __________ Respondent(s).
Criminal Appeal No. 1285 of 2015 (Arising out of S.L.P.(Crl.) No. 5222 of 2015), decided on September 28, 2015
The Order of the court was delivered by
Order
1. Leave granted.
2. The present appeal, by special leave, calls in question the legal validity of the order dated 16th December, 2014 in Criminal Petition No. 8362 of 2012, preferred under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.), whereby the High Court has directed stay of Crime No. 6 of 2012 instituted for the offence punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code and directed C.C. No. 139 of 2012 instituted for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act to be taken up by the learned Magistrate for trial.
3. It is submitted by Mr. D. Ramakrishna Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the appellants that the High Court has erroneously stayed the proceeding by forming opinion that the cases under Section 420 I.P.C and Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act are based on self same facts, and hence Section 300(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure would come into play. To bolster his submission, he has placed reliance on Sangeetaben Mahendrabhai Patel v. State of Gujarat (2012) 7 SCC 621.
4. In Sangeetaben Mahendrabhai Patel (supra), it has been held as follows:
“Admittedly, the appellant had been tried earlier for the offences punishable under the provisions of Section 138 of the NI Act and the case is sub judice before the High Court. In the instant case, he is involved under Sections 406/420 read with Section 114 IPC. In the prosecution under Section 138 of the NI Act, the mens rea i.e. fraudulent or dishonest intention at the time of issuance of cheque is not required to be proved. However, in the case under IPC involved herein, the issue of mens rea may be relevant. The offence punishable under Section 420 IPC is a serious one as the sentence of 7 years can be imposed.”
5. On a perusal of the judgment in entirety, we find that the similar reasoning was given by the High Court which was not accepted by this Court. The attractability of Section 300 Cr.P.C. was negatived. The facts in the present case are almost similar to the case stated in Sangeetaben Mahendrabhai Patel (supra).
6. In view of the aforesaid, we allow the appeal and set aside the order passed by the High Court and direct that the learned Magistrate before whom both the cases are pending, shall proceed in accordance with law. However, we direct that he shall pronounce the judgments in both the cases on the same day.
7. The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 5222/2015
(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 16/12/2014 in CRLP No. 8362/2012,16/12/2014 in CRLPM No. 7839/2012 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and The State of Andhra Pradesh)
M/s. V.S. Reddy & Sons.….Petitioner(s)
v.
Muthyala Ramalinga Reddy & Anr.….Respondent(s)
(With appln. (s) for exemption from filing O.T. and interim relief and office report)
Date: 28/09/2015 This petition was called on for hearing today.
(Before Dipak Misra and Prafulla C. Pant, JJ.)
For Petitioner(s) Mr. D. Ramakrishna Reddy, Adv.
Mrs. D. Bharathi Reddy, AOR
For Respondent(s) Mr. B. Ramana Murthy, AOR
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
ORDER
8. Leave granted.
9. The appeal is disposed of in terms of the signed order.
———
