K.C.SHARMA,J. - (1.) IN the instant petition under Section 482, Cr.P.C. petitioners seek to challenge the order dated 22.8.200 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Jaipur City, Jaipur (appellate Court) dismissing application of the petitioners moved under Section 210, Cr.P.C. for staying hearing of the appeal. The facts necessary for the decision of the instant petition in short are that challenging the judgment of conviction dated 27.7.1999 passed by the trial Court convicting and sentencing the petitioners for offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the petitioners filed an appeal before the learned Sessions Judge, Jaipur City which was transferred to the appellate Court for disposal. During the course of hearing of the appeal on 16.6.2000, the petitioners filed an application under Section 210, Cr.P.C. with the request to stay hearing of the appeal till the disposal of the case pending with regard to the FIR lodged by them against complainant. Learned appellate Court vide its order dated 22.8.2000 has dismissed the application, hence the present petition has been filed by the petitioners challenging the said order of the appellate Court.
(2.) I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties. Learned Counsel for the petitioners has contended that regarding supply of defective computer, the petitioners have filed a criminal complaint before ACJM No. 2, Jaipur City, Jaipur which was sent to the Police Station Gandhi Nagar, Jaipur for investigation and the police registered a case vide FIR No. 267/1995 against respondent No. 2 for offence under Sections 181, 182, 193, 420 and 500, IPC. In that FIR the police after investigation has submitted FR No. 191/1995 on 30.9.1995 against which the petitioners filed a protest petition and the concerned Magistrate while refusing to accept the FR directed the police to re -investigate the matter. According to learned Counsel for petitioners investigation in the case is still pending. On the basis of these facts, learned Counsel for the petitioners has contended that the complaint filed by respondent No. 2 and the complaint submitted by the petitioners both are consequence of one and the same transaction. In such circumstances the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioners, is that the appellate Court ought to have stayed the proceedings of the case pending against petitioners have been convicted and the offence regarding which the investigation is pending before the police do not relate to the same offence as the petitioners have been convicted under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act while the investigation pending before the police is in relation to the offence under the provisions of IPC which cannot be termed as 'same subject matter' so as to attract provisions of Section 210, Cr.P.C.
(3.) THE net result of the discussions above is that the petition fails and is, hereby, dismissed.;