Cr.MMO No. 247 of 2010 9.3.2011 Present: Mr. Dalip Kumar Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Naresh Kumar Gupta, Advocate, for the respondent. The petitioner seeks the quashing of complaint instituted against him under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act at Rampur Bushehr pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class. The allegations made in the complaint interalia are that one cheque 090002 dated 15.3.2010 was issued by the petitioner for ` 4,37,997/- in favour of the complainant payable at Rampur. This negotiable instrument was dishonoured. The petitioner seeks quashing of the complaint interalia on the grounds that a civil suit titled M/s Deep Auto Works vs. M/s Narang Motors for recovery a sum of ` 5,20,000/- with respect to the same transaction is pending in the Court of learned District Judge, Kinnaur at Rampur Bushehr and the amount involved represents the same amount as claimed in the Negotiable Instrument. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that vide Annexure P-3 to this petition a compromise was arrived at between Kulwant Singh, Dinesh Kumar and Deepak Sharma. Leanred counsel further submits that since the entire dispute between the parties had been compromised and that pursuant to the compromise (Annxure P-3), the petitioner has also withdrawn the cases which were pending inter se between the parties and now the complaint cannot proceed further. Moreover in the circumstances as detailed in the petition, the complaint is nothing but an abuse to the process of Court. Learned counsel urges that complaint is bereft of the necessary ingredients of Section 138 required for invoking the jurisdiction of the Court to try the matter. Reliance has been placed upon the decision of the Supreme Court in B.Suresh Yadav vs, Sharifa Bee and another, AIR 2008 SC 210 holding that dishonest concealment of material facts constitutes a ground for quashing the complaint. In that case the Supreme Court was dealing with the allegations of cheating. The Court held that since important material facts regarding pendency of civil suit had been concealed from the Court, the continuance of criminal proceedings was nothing but an abuse to the process of Court. In these circumstances, the decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court dismissing the petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. was reversed and the Supreme Court proceeded to quash the complaint. Learned counsel also relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Damodar S. Prabhu vs. Sayed Babalal H. AIR 2010 SC 1907 holding: “16. …… In light of this submission, we direct that it should be mandatory for the complainant to disclose that no other complaint has been filed in any other court in respect of the same transaction. Such a disclosure should be made on a sworn affidavit which should accompany the complaint filed under Section 200 of the CrPC. If it is found that such multiple complaints have been filed, orders for transfer of the complaint to the first court should be given, generally speaking, by the High Court after imposing heavy costs on the complainant for resorting to such a practice. tThese directions should be given effect prospectively.” (at p. 1914) The settled proposition of law needs no retriation. This is not a case where powers to quash the complaint can be resorted to straight way on the interpretation of some legal provision. In these circumstances, this petition is disposed of with the following directions: (a) It will be open to the petitioner herein to establish that complaint Annexure P-9 does not contain necessary and mandatory pleadings as required under Section 138 of the Act to invoke the jurisdiction of the trial Court; (b) The civil suit and compromise constitute a bar for the institution of the complaint and that the respondent has approached the court by concealment of such facts in which case the petitioner would be entitled to exempalary costs; (c) To prove that both the civil suit and the compromise constitute a bar for the invocation of jurisdiction of the Court to proceed further in the matter. Petition stands disposed of. March 09, 2011 (Dev Darshan Sud), ms Judge