Shri Rajat Mittal vs State & Anrs.
2001 Latest Caselaw 1058 Del

ORDER

S.K. Agarwal, J

1. This is a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing of FIR No.294/2000 under Section 420, IPC, P.S. Greater Kailash-I New Delhi.

2. On 14th October, 2000 Mr. Rajiv Modi lodged a report with the Deputy Commissioner of Police, South Delhi, alleging that he knew the petitioner from before; on the basis of the representations made by the petitioner that he had procured big orders for supply of fabrics from Dubai, he had supplied goods worth Rs.36,34,268/- against bills, to the petitioner's firm. For the goods supplied, the petitioner issued two cheques, in the sum of Rs.18.0 lacs and Rs.10.0 lacs. He agreed to pay the balance amount within a month and pledged the original title deeds of his residential property as security. The said cheques were dishonoured for the reason 'account closed'. It was further alleged that, right from the beginning, petitioner's intention was dishonest and he did not intend to make the payment. It is, thus, alleged that the petitioner cheated the complainant. On the basis of above allegations, FIR was registered on 16.11.2000, which is sought to be quashed.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that petitioner had earlier lodged report against the complainant for threats given to him on phone. He also filed a Writ petition (Crl. W.660/2000), which was disposed of on 30th July, 2000 by the Division Bench of this Court, with the directions to the Deputy Commissioner of Police, to enquire into the complaint. He argued that on the basis of the two cheques of Rs.18.0 lacs and Rs.10.0 lacs, which were dishonoured, the (respondent No.2), complainant has already filed complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act on 10th of October, 2000, which is pending for adjudication and simultaneously on 16.10.2000, he lodged above report with the police, on the basis of which the above-noted FIR under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code was registered. It is, thus, argued that the above FIR is an abuse of the process of the law, of the Negotiable Instruments Act, would be competent to examine whether any offence of cheating is made out or not? Thus, it is argued that the above FIR is liable to be quashed. Reliance is placed on the decision of the Supreme Court in Sagar Suri & Ors. Vs. State .

4. Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, argued that as per directions given by the Division Bench of this Court in (Crl. Writ No.660/2000), the complaint of the petitioner was duly enquired and allegations made herein were not substantiated. Further, it is argued that investigations on the complaint lodged by (respondent No.2), revealed that petitioner had issued above-noted two cheques in the year 2000, from the account which was closed two years earlier. In the complaint filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, even the statement of the complainant was not recorded since the original cheques were seized by the police, thus, cognizance in the complaint has yet not been taken, and that above FIR is not liable to be quashed. It is argued that matter has been investigated and challan is ready to be filed.

5. I have considered the rival contentions; merely because on the same set of facts, a complaint was filed in court and FIR was registered by police, by itself cannot be the ground for quashing the FIR. Section 210 of the Code of Criminal Procedure lays down the procedure to be followed when there is a complaint case and police investigating on the same facts. It provides that if a report is made by the investigating agency under Section 173 and on such report cognizance of any offence is taken by the Magistrate against any person, who is an accused in the complaint case, the Magistrate shall inquire into and try together the complaint case and the case arising out of the police report, as if both the cases were instituted on the police report. In most of the cases, material to sustain the charge, can be collected only through investigation and if, in the meantime, complainant has chosen to file a complaint under section 138 Negotiable Instrument Act, to save limitation or otherwise that cannot be the ground for quashing the FIR registered by the police. Looking into the nature of allegations here, it cannot be said that recording of FIR is an abuse of the process of law. The observations made by the Supreme Court in Sagar Suri's case (Supra) are not applicable to the facts of this case.

6. For the foregoing reasons, I find no merit in the petition and the same is dismissed.