Allowed

Vinod Kapoor and Anr. v. State of Punjab and Anr.

Punjab & Haryana HC2 Nov 2015CRM-M/14522/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court quashed the FIR registered for cheque dishonour and related offences involving alleged tampering. The petitioners had already paid the disputed amount, and the issue of cheque tampering by bank authorities was deemed debatable, making further proceedings inexpedient.

What did the court decide?

FIR No. 249 dated 13.6.2012 and all consequential proceedings were quashed.

Vinod Kapoor and Anr. Vs State of Punjab and Anr. — Cheque Dishonour | Punjab & Haryana HC (2015)

¶1

Crl. Misc. No. M-14522 of 2013

¶2

-1 -

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

¶4

Crl. Misc. No. M-14522 of 2013 Date of Decision: 02.11.2015.

¶5

Vinod Kapoor and another

¶6

........Petitioners

¶7

Vs.

¶8

State of Punjab and another ......Respondents

¶9

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA

¶10

Present: Mr. S.S.Majithia, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶11

Mr. P.S.Bajwa, DAG, Punjab.

¶12

SABINA, J.

¶13

Petitioners have filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for quashing of FIR No. 249 dated 13.6.2012, under Section 420, 467, 471 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (' IPC ' for short), registered at Police Station Civil Lines, Amritsar City (Annexure P-1) and all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom.

¶14

Prosecution story, in brief, is that petitioner No. 1 had issued a cheque dated 5.2.2012 in the sum of ` 1,83,026/- in favour of the company of respondent No. 2. When the said cheque was presented for encashment, it was returned unpaid with memo “alteration in date/figure/words require drawer's full signature”. The cheque in question had been tampered by the accused in connivance with the Branch Manager of the bank.

¶15

Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners have already paid ` 1,85,000/- to the

¶16

GURPREET SINGH 2015.11.05 10:21 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document chandigarh

¶17

Crl. Misc. No. M-14522 of 2013 -2 -

¶18

complainant in terms of the order passed by this Court dated 25.9.2012 (Annexure P-2).

¶19

Learned State counsel, on the other hand, has opposed the petition. However, the fact that the petitioners have paid ` 1,85,000/- to the complainant/respondent No. 2 has not been disputed.

¶20

In the present case, the allegation against the petitioners is that they had tampered with the cheque in question in connivance with the Manager of the bank, issued in favour of the complainant. Vide order Annexure P-2, petitioners were ordered to pay a sum of 1,85,000 to the complainant by way of bank draft as one of the conditions at the time of grant of anticipatory bail. In pursuance to the said order, petitioners have admittedly paid 1,85,000/- to respondent No. 2. Since the petitioners have already paid the amount in question to respondent No. 2 and the fact that the cheque in question was allegedly tampered while it was in the possession of the bank authorities and it would be debatable issue as to whether the petitioners had any access to the cheque in question, it would be just and expedient to quash the FIR in question as continuation of criminal proceedings against the petitioners would not serve any useful purpose.

¶21

Accordingly, this petition is allowed. FIR No. 249 dated 13.6.2012, under Section 420, 467, 471 IPC, registered at Police Station Civil Lines, Amritsar City (Annexure P-1) and all the consequential proceedings, arising therefrom, are quashed.

¶22

(SABINA) JUDGE

¶23

November 02, 2015 GURPREET SINGH Gurpreet 2015.11.05 10:21 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document chandigarh

Vinod Kapoor and Anr. v. State of Punjab and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vinod Kapoor and Anr. v. State of Punjab and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mohan Lal Aggarwal@ Mohan Lal & Ors. Vs State of Punjab & Anr.

Gagandeep Singh & Ors. Vs State of Punjab & Ors.

Ravti Raman Shally Vs State of Haryana & Anr.

Charan Dass Aggarwal Vs State of Punjab and Anr.

Jiu and Ors. Vs Ramesh and Anr.

Pritam Singh & Anr. Vs State of Punjab etc.