Rajasthan High Court has dismissed a petition filed by Sanjiv Bhatt seeking discontinuation of the proceedings in NDPS Case pending before the Special Court (NDPS) in Palanpur, Gujarat.
Bhatt's contention was that first the cognizance was taken against him in the NDPS Case by Jodhpur Special Court. Later on when the subsequent charge-sheet was filed against him before the Special Court in Palanpur and the cognizance was taken against him. He contended that the basic foundation of these two criminal cases is one and the same, therefore, Section 186 of Cr.P.C. is very much attracted in the present case.
Section 186 CrPC enables the High Court to decide the question in case of doubt as to which of the two different Courts having taken cognizance of the same offence should inquire or try. In case both the Courts are subordinate to the same High Court, under Clause (a), the decision shall be taken by the same Court. But, in a case where the two different Courts are the Courts subordinate to different High Courts, under Clause (b), the decision shall be taken by the High Court within the local limits of whose appellate criminal jurisdiction the proceedings first commenced.
Taking note of the records of the case, Justice Manoj Kumar Garg observed that the first complaint lodged at Palanpur and the subsequent complaint filed by Sumer Singh Rajpurohit at Pali are related to two different and distinct complaints.The provision of Section 186 of Cr.P.C. is applicable only where the cases instituted in different courts are in respect of the same offence arising out of the same occurrence and that the transaction and that the parties are the same, which is not the case in the case at hand, the judge said. The court further observed:
One complaint which was lodged at Palanpur pertains to conspiracy and the offence relating to the NDPS Act by planting contraband, whereas, the complaint filed by Sumer Singh Rajpurohit in Pali is in relation to his false implication in a NDPS case arising out of a property dispute. To further conclude, it would be unfit to put the present case under the microscopic view of Section 186 due to the aforesaid reasons. Further, Section 186 empowers the High Court to settle at rest anomaly over jurisdiction avenue. If all the cases have been instituted within the original jurisdiction of the same High Court, the same would be decided by the same High Court as per Sub-clause (a) of 186. In case, the cases happen to be instituted within the local jurisdiction of different High Courts, then a privilege has been given to that High Court within whose jurisdiction, the proceeding first commenced.
The Court also added that when the proceedings commenced at PS Palanpur City, Gujarat, the relief sought by the petitioner seeking stay of the proceedings before the court of Special Judge NDPS Cases, Palanpur is without any merit.
"Moreover, the conduct of the present petitioner is writ large from the observations made by the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court mentioning that the applicant has scant respect for the Courts" the bench said while dismissing his petition.
Case name: Sanjiv R. Bhatt vs. StateCase no.: S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 997/2020Coram: Justice Manoj Kumar Garg Counsel: Adv Vivek Raj Singh Bajwa for petitoner, PP Sudhir Tak and Adv Kuldeep Mathur
Click here to Read/Download Order