MAHESH CHANDRA SHARMA, J. - (1.) THIS order will dispose of this criminal misc. petition and other 34 criminal misc. petition filed by the petitioner Mahesh Chand Choudhary, as mentioned in the schedule enclosed with this order.
(2.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the complainants and the learned Public Prosecutor. This misc. petition and the misc. petitions mentioned in the Schedule enclosed with this order have been filed against the order imposing condition of submission of bank guarantee before granting permission to travel abroad dated 4.8.2009 by the Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 7 Jaipur City in the criminal revisions which arise from the orders dated 17th June, 2009 of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No. 6 Jaipur City Jaipur in the cases filed by the complainants. The facts of the misc. petition No. 1980 of 2009 are taken into consideration. The respondent No 2' s firm M/s. S.N. Kapoor Exports and the petitioner's firm M/s. Saraswati Exports were having prolific business relations and had various agreements dated 1.4.2001, 20.11.2001, and 1.4.2003 with M/s. S.N. Kapoor Exports of which S.N. Kapoor and his son Vikram Kapoor were partners. As per agreement dated 1.4.2001 and 1.4.2003 representative of firm M/s. S.N. Kapoor Exports, Shri Vikram Kapoor had to look after and supervise various stages of carpet manufacturing at M/s. Saraswati Exports within their premises and then also sell their products in the export market. For the same a consideration of 10% commission was to be paid to Vikram Kapoor, however, post the agreement dated 1.4.2003, it was fixed at Rs. 17 lakh per month which was to be paid in three installments on 11th, 21st, and the last day of the month as Rs. 6 lakh, Rs. 6 lakh and the remaining amount post TDS respectively. Continued business partnership and amicable relations shared between the two business parties led the petitioner to deposit with the firm M/s. S.N. Kapoor Exports a total of 72 cheques for2 years, in advance with the understanding that the cheques would only be encashed 3 months from the date on which the cheque was issued, as commission for all the required work done by respondent No. 2. But due to some reasons some of the cheques were dishonoured and the respondent No. 2 filed a complaints before the court concerned. Thereafter the petitioner has moved an application before the trial Court whereby he sought permission to go abroad. The trial Court after hearing the parties allowed the application of the petitioner and granted permission to go abroad by imposing following conditions. JUDGEMENT_410_RAJLW1_2011Image1.jpg Against this order Criminal Revision Petition No. 1206 of 2008 was filed, in the aforesaid revision petition, this court by order dated Dec. 2, 2008 passed following order: "In the result, this criminal revision petition is allowed and the order dated 6.8.2008 passed by the Addl. Civil Judge (Jr. Div.) & Judicial Magistrate No. 22 Jaipur City, Jaipur in Case No. 72/2005 is quashed and set aside and the matter is remanded to the trial court with the direction to rehear the matter on the point of permitting the accused non-petitioner No. 2 to go abroad, after hearing all the parties concerned including the Passport officer, as also taking into consideration the fact regarding pendency of 39 cases." Against this order, the petitioner moved Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 9094/2008 before the Apex Court, which has been decided by the order dated 19.12.2008, same read as under: "Upon hearing counsel the court made the following ORDER Learned counsel for the petitioner wants to withdraw the petition stating that the petitioner shall move the trial Court for permission to go abroad and that he is willing to deposit in the said court amount covered by the purported cheques. If it is so, it is open to the trial Court to take note of it and pass appropriate orders. We express no opinion in this regard. Accordingly, the special leave petition dismissed as withdrawn."
(3.) AFTER passing of the order by the Apex Court, the petitioner submitted before the trial Court that he is willing to deposit Bank Guarantee. Thereafter the petitioner had moved an application for granting permission to go abroad in all the cases. AFTER hearing both the parties, the Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate No. 6 Jaipur City Jaipur vide its order dated 17.6.2009, passed the following order: JUDGEMENT_410_RAJLW1_2011Image2.jpg Aggrieved from this order dated 17.6.2009, the petitioner moved revision petition before the Sessions Judge, Jaipur City, Jaipur, which was transferred to the Court of Addl. Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 7 Jaipur City, Jaipur. The revisional Court also dismissed the revision petitions vide order dated 4.8.2009. The operative portion of the orders reads as under: JUDGEMENT_410_RAJLW1_2011Image3.jpg Against the order dated 4.8.2009 passed by the revisional court, this criminal misc. petition and the misc. petitions mentioned in the schedule have been preferred. ;