The High Court dismissed a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking to quash an FIR for cheating and forgery, held liable to be used as a counterblast to complaints by petitioners under Section 138 NI Act regarding cheque misutilisation.
The petition for quashing of FIR No. 75 and all consequential proceedings was dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
Criminal Misc.M No. 33552 of 2008 (O&M)
In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh
Criminal Misc.M No. 33552 of 2008 (O&M) Date of decision: 25.3.2013
Raman Kumar and others
......Petitioners
Versus
State of Punjab and another .......Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA
Present: Mr.Veneet Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr.G.S.Khandebad, Assistant Advocate General,Punjab None for respondent No.2 ****
SABINA, J.
Petitioners have filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (`Cr.P.C.' for short) for quashing of FIR No. 75 dated 12.3.2008 registered under Sections 380,468, 465, 471 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 at Police Station Beas, District Amritsar along with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the FIR in question was liable to be quashed as the same had been filed as a counter blast to the complaints filed by the petitioners against the complainants under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments
2
Criminal Misc.M No. 33552 of 2008 (O&M)
Act, 1881(for short `the Act') with regard to dishonour of cheques in question.
Learned State counsel, on the other hand, has opposed the petition and has stated that the cheques in question had been stolen by the petitioners and, thereafter, false complaints had been filed under Section 138 of the Act against respondent No.2 on the basis of the said stolen cheques.
Prosecution story, in brief, as per the FIR in question is that the complainant was running B.G.Rice and General Mill along with other partners. Mill went into loses and was closed. A report was also sent in this regard to the Sales Tax Department. In the year 2003, Mill was taken over by other partners namely Baba Bhupinder Singh and Baba Gurmukh Singh. The said persons agreed to repay the debts. Since the complainant used to remain out of station, he had handed over ten cheques to his partners Harish Kumar and Rakesh Kumar. Accountant of the complainant told him that the cheques were not talling with the accounts. When the complainant inquired about the cheques from the partners, he was not given any satisfactory reply and consequently, the complainant permitted the Bank to stop the payment of the cheques. Harish Kumar and Rakesh Kumar in connivance with Raman Kumar misutilized the stolen cheques and had sent a notice through counsel with regard to dishonour of cheques.
In the present case, admittedly, petitioner No.1 has filed complaints with regard to dishonour of cheques against M/s B.G. Rice and General Mills and its partners.Respondent No.2, on the
3
Criminal Misc.M No. 33552 of 2008 (O&M)
other hand, has lodged the FIR in question after the filing of the complaint under Section 138 of the Act that certain missing cheques had been misutilized by the petitioners. There is no doubt that the accused in the complaint filed by petitioner No.1 under Section 138 of the Act can take up all the pleas available to them in their defence . But that does not mean that respondent No.2 could not have initiated criminal proceedings against the petitioners with regard to misutilization of the alleged missing cheques. Punishment of the petitioners could be only sought by respondent No.2 by lodging separte criminal proceedings against them. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, it would not be just and expedient to quash the criminal proceedings against the petitioners.
Dismissed.
(SABINA) JUDGE
March 25, 2013 arya
2 issues framed by the court
Whether criminal proceedings for misutilisation of missing cheques should be quashed when the petitioners themselves filed complaints under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act regarding the
Whether the filing of a complaint by the petitioners precludes the respondent from initiating separate criminal proceedings for misappropriation.
3 provisions across 3 enactments
Raman Kumar and others
State of Punjab
Sabina
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
