IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No. 261 of 2011. Date of Decision : 21.7.2011. Smt. Poonam ...... Petitioner Versus Parminder Singh Walia ...... Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAWAB SINGH Present: Mr. Anupam Bhardwaj, Advocate, for the petitioner. NAWAB SINGH J.(ORAL) This revision is directed against the order dated December 15th, 2010 (Annexure P-3) passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Amritsar, whereby, application filed by the accused- petitioner under Section 210 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to try the complaint case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act and the case instituted on Police report bearing FIR No. 98 dated April 2nd, 2006 under Sections 420 etc. IPC, Police Station Civil Lines, Amritsar, together, was dismissed. 2. Parminder Singh Walia-complainant-respondent No.2 is a retired Principal. Poonam-petitioner is an agent in the Main Post Office, Amritsar and deals in the investment of money in the saving schemes being carried out by the Post Office. The complainant used to invest money in the saving schemes through complainant. On June 18th, 2005 the petitioner took Rs.1,51,000/- from the respondent for investment in a saving scheme. Subsequently also, she took an amount of Rs.3,82,000/- from the respondent on the same pretext. On maturation of the plan, the complainant went to the Post Office and came to know that the entries and the seals/stamps on the passbooks were forged. When the complainant approached the petitioner, she in discharge of her partial liability, issued one cheque of Rs.4,33,000/-. On presentation, Criminal Revision No. 261 of 2011 (2) the cheque was dis-honoured. Hence, a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act was filed by the complainant on November 5th, 2005. Thereafter, on April 2nd, 2006 the complainant lodged the aforesaid FIR against the petitioner. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the impugned order passed by the Court below suffers from patent illegality as the allegations of the complainant-respondent in both the cases are that the petitioner cheated him by inducing him to invest money in saving schemes of the Post Office and allured him for purchasing the passbooks of other account holders. The point arising for consideration in both the cases is as to whether the petitioner cheated the respondent-complainant and as such, both the cases be tried together. 4. The contention raised by learned counsel for the petitioner pales into insignificance inasmuch as offences in both the cases are different. In the complaint case, the petitioner is facing trial as the cheque issued by her was dishonoured whereas in the FIR, she is facing criminal proceedings for the cheating committed by her by deceiving the complainant to part with his property. In considered opinion of this Court, both the offences are distinct in nature and are arising from different transactions. Liability in the FIR is regarding deception practised by the petitioner and in the complaint case she is being prosecuted for the dishonour of the cheques. Hence, the provisions of Section 210 of the Code are not attracted in this case. 5. Above being the factual position, the petition is dismissed. (NAWAB SINGH) JUDGE 21.7.2011. SN