Crl. Misc. No.M-24562 of 2010 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl. Misc. No. M-24562 of 2010 Date of Decision: August 26, 2010 Manohar Lal Narula …..Petitioner Vs. State of Punjab and others …..Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M.S. BEDI. -.- Present:- Mr.J.S. Bhatti, Advocate for the petitioner. -.- M.M.S. BEDI, J. (ORAL) Petitioner being an accused in a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, (for short ‘the Act’) has challenged two orders dated January 10, 29009 and February 25, 2009 which is pending before this Court in Crl. Misc. No. M-5863 of 2009 and is fixed for August 31, 2010 before a Coordinate Bench. The petitioner filed another petition bearing Crl. Misc. No. M-5503 of 2009 praying for quashing of the criminal proceedings under Section 138 of the Act in six criminal complaints. The Crl. Misc. No.M-24562 of 2010 [2] said petition was dismissed as withdrawn on July 15, 2010 by Rajan Gupta, J, with liberty to the petitioner to file fresh with better particulars. The present petition has now been filed praying for quashing of proceedings in six criminal complaints under Section 138 of the Act, i.e. annexures P-2 to P-7, besides praying that the issuance of warrants of arrest of the petitioner in proclaimed offender proceedings initiated by the Judicial Magistrate, Rajpura be stayed. When asked as to what better particulars have been added in the present petition, counsel informs that better particulars have been mentioned in paras No.1 and 3. I have heard counsel for the petitioner and I am of the opinion that the present petition challenging six separate criminal proceedings launched by six separate complaints cannot be challenged simultaneously by filing one petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. merely on the ground that the cheques which had been issued on behalf of the petitioner, were issued as security and that these were lying with complainant- respondent No.2 as security cheques and not in view of the debt. The plea that the cheques were issued as security and were not to discharge the liability, cannot be appreciated at this stage especially when the petitioner has evaded his appearance before the trial Court and the proceedings for declaring him a proclaimed offender have been initiated. No ground is made out for exercising inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Dismissed. Crl. Misc. No.M-24562 of 2010 [3] At this stage, counsel for the petitioner has again requested to give him liberty to file a fresh petition. It is always open to the petitioner to file any number of petitions subject to their maintainability and fulfilling the parameters required for interference under Section 482 Cr.P.C. August 26, 2010 (M.M.S.BEDI) sanjay JUDGE