Ashok Puri vs State Of Punjab And Another on 19 December, 2011
Punjab-Haryana High Court
Ashok Puri vs State Of Punjab And Another on 19 December, 2011
Crl.Misc.No.M-32912 of 2007 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
Crl.Misc.No.M-32912 of 2007
Date of Decision:- 19.12.2011
Ashok Puri ....Petitioner(s)
vs.
State of Punjab and another ....Respondent(s)
***
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH
***
Present:- Mr.Hemant Bassi, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
Mr.Vishal Munjal, Addl.AG, Punjab.
Mr.D.D.Bansal, Advocate,
for respondent No.2.
***
AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. (Oral)
Prayer in this petition is for quashing of FIR No.265 dated 23.7.2003 (Annexure P-3) under Section
420 IPC registered at Police Station Division No.6 Ludhiana on the ground that
complainant-respondent No.2 has initiated proceedings under Section 420 IPC and 138 of the
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short the 'N.I.Act') simultaneously against the petitioner
through a criminal complaint which is verbatim the same as the FIR and in the said criminal
complaint, petitioner has been summoned only for offence under Section 138 of the N.I.Act vide
order dated 12.11.2003 ( Annexure P-2) by the Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Ludhiana.
It is the contention of the counsel for the petitioner that the allegations in the FIR and in the
criminal complaint preferred by the complainant (Annexures P-1 and P-3) are verbatim the same
and the Court, on the basis of the preliminary evidence led by the complainant in criminal
complaint, taking into consideration the evidence so produced, has summoned the petitioner only
for offence under Section 138 of the N.I.Act vide order dated 12.11.2003 (Annexure P-2). He
contends that once the criminal proceedings on the same allegations have been initiated against the
petitioner and the Court has taken cognizance thereof, continuance of proceedings on an FIR would
Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/106596793/ 1
Ashok Puri vs State Of Punjab And Another on 19 December, 2011
be an abuse of process of Court. In support of this contention, counsel has placed reliance upon the
judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of G.Sagar Suri and another vs. State of U.P.and others,
2000 (2) SCC 636 wherein it has been held that where criminal complaint under Section 138 of the
N.I. Act is also pending, no occasion for prosecution of that person under Sections 406 and 420 IPC
is made out and the prosecution is liable to be quashed. On this basis, he prays for the present
petition to be allowed.
On the other hand, counsel for the respondent-complainant submits that the FIR has been got
registered by the complainant for an offence under Section 420 IPC in which, on investigation,
substance has been found and challan has been presented against the petitioner. He, therefore,
contends that it cannot be said that criminal proceedings under Section 420 IPC initiated by the
complainant on the basis of an FIR is not sustainable. He, however, could not dispute the fact that
the contents of the FIR (Annexure P-3) and that of the criminal complaint filed by the complainant
(Annexure P-1) are verbatim the same as alleged by the petitioner. On this basis, he prays for
dismissal of the petition.
I have heard counsel for the parties and gone through the records of the case.
The facts are not in dispute in this case. Five cheques were issued by the petitioner in favour of
respondent No.2 which were, when presented, not encashed and were, in fact, endorsed by stating
that the 'accounts stood closed'. It was on this basis that proceedings under Section 138 under the
N.I. Act read with Section 420 IPC were initiated by respondent No.2-complainant through a
criminal complaint on 27.6.2003. On the basis of preliminary evidence led by him. The Court did
not find any substance as regards the offence under Section 420 IPC is concerned as the petitioner
was summoned by the trial Court vide its order dated 12.11.2003 for an offence under Section 138 of
the N.I. Act. Verbatim of the complaint, FIR was also lodged by complainant No.2 which was
registered as FIR No.265 dated 23.7.2003 at Police Station Division No.6, Ludhiana.
It would not be out of way to mention here that the criminal complaint was initiated by the
respondent prior to the registration of the FIR in which although challan has been presented but in
the light of the fact that the Court while summoning the petitioner vide order dated 12.11.2003 has
only found substance with regard to the allegations for commission of an offence by the petitioner
under Section 138 of the N.I.Act, on the basis of the evidence led by complainant-respondent No.2.
The judgment of the Supreme Court in G.Sagar Suri's case (supra) fully covers the present case
where it has been held that proceedings under the Indian Penal Code for an offence under Sections
406 and 420 IPC are not maintainable when complaint has already been lodged and proceedings
under Section 138 of the N.I. Act are already pending, as in the present case.
In view of the judgment of the Supreme Court, FIR registered against the petitioner for an offence
under Section 420 IPC cannot sustain in the light of the pendency of the proceedings under Section
138 of the N.I. Act wherein the contents of the complaint and the FIR are verbatim the same
especially when the Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Ludhiana in his order of summoning dated
12.11.2003 has not taken cognizance for offence under Section 420 IPC although the complaint was
filed under this Section also.
Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/106596793/ 2
Ashok Puri vs State Of Punjab And Another on 19 December, 2011
In view of the above, the present petition is allowed; FIR No.265 dated 23.7.2003 (Annexure P-3)
under Section 420 IPC registered at Police Station Division No.6 Ludhiana and all consequential
proceedings arising therefrom are hereby quashed.
December 19, 2011 ( AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH )
poonam JUDGE
Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/106596793/ 3
