No Common Order for Summoning Respondents in Different Cases Filed by a Common Petitioner can be passed when the Parties so Summoned, are Unrelated

The Delhi High Court noted that no common order for summoning respondents in different cases filed by a common petitioner can be passed when the parties so summoned, are unrelated

The Court made this observation while quashing a common summoning order passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate in three cases, in which the Complainant (Kanika Investments Ltd.) was same but the accused were unrelated.

In the present case, amidst three cases wherein common summons was issued, two of the cases were pertained to Sec138 of the NI Act, whereas the third case relates to offence under Sec 138 NI Act, read with Sec 25 of the Payment and Settlement Act, 2007.

The Court ruled the following observation in view the contention made by the Petitioner in the third case that the procedure prescribed for determination of liability under the Payment & Settlement Systems Act, 2007 isn’t completely in the same subject with the provisions under the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

Observation made by the Court

  • The Bench noted that “in the circumstances, as observed herein above that no common order as the order dated 11.3.2019 qua CC No. 1565/19 with CC Nos. 1566/19 and 1567/19 could have been passed by the learned Trial Court in the circumstances, where the parties to the case also differ and where it was incumbent on the learned Trial Court to ascertain the applicability of the provisions of Payment & Settlements Systems Act, 2007
    Advertisement
    , to the averments made to the complaint in CC No. 1565/19…
  • The Court further observed that “it was also essential for the learned Trial Court to consider the aspect of the applicability or otherwise of the provisions of the Payments & Settlement Systems Act, 2007, read with the terms of the contours of the complaint in CC No. 1565/19, in as much as it has been submitted specifically on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner is entitled to be tried, if required, to be so tried under the appropriate provisions of law.
  • The impugned summoning order was thus set aside and the matter was remanded back to the Trial Court with directions to consider the aspect of summoning or otherwise afresh, qua the applicability of the Payment & Settlements Systems Act, 2007 r/w Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

Case Name: Vikas Bajaj & Anr. v.  M/s Kanika Investments Ltd.

Citation: Crl.M.C. No. 1522/2020 and Crl.M.A. Nos. 8139/2020

Coram: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE ANU MALHOTRA

[ The Delhi High Court noted that no common order for summoning respondents in different cases filed by a common petitioner, can be passed when the parties so summoned, are unrelated ]

Also Read: A ‘Default Bail’ Illegally Or Erroneously Granted Under Sec 167(2) Cr.PC May Be Annulled Under Sec 439(2) CrPC: SC

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *