IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Misc. Application No. 589 of 2004 Sri S.P. Agrawal Director Alacs Finance Ltd. Office 301, Channa Mension 2215, Gurudwara Road Karol Bagh, New Delhi-110005. …………..…Petitioner. Versus 1. State of Uttaranchal 2. Shiv Ratan Agrawal S/o Mahabir Pal Agrawal Managing Director Achla Foods (P) Ltd. Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar. ……….Respondents. Shri Gopal Krishna, Advocate, for the petitioner. Shri K.S. Bhaskar, Advocate, for respondent No. 2. Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. By means of this petition, moved under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the petitioner has sought quashing of the proceedings of criminal complaint case No. 1616 of 2003, Shiv Ratan Agarwal Vs. S.P. Agarwal, relating to offences punishable under Sections 420, 452, 323, 504 and 506 I.P.C. pending in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kashipur. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 3. Brief facts of the case are that respondent No. 2-Shiv Ratan Agarwal, filed impugned criminal 2 complaint, against the petitioner on 17.07.2003, before the trial court (Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kashipur), alleging that in respect of a loan transaction, accused/petitioner obtained blank cheque No. 689260 (Punjab and Sind Bank) and by entering a forged entry of 3 lakhs, demanded said amount from the complainant. On being protested, the accused/petitioner hurled abuses and threatened the complainant. On said complaint, after recording statement of the complainant under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and that of witnesses under Section 202 Cr.P.C., the Magistrate passed order dated 24.07.2003, summoning the accused (present petitioner). Hence this petition. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that aforesaid criminal complaint is nothing but abuse of process of law on the part of the complainant. In this connection, it is contended that the present petitioner filed a criminal complaint on 01.05.2003 (before the impugned criminal complaint filed by respondent No. 2), before Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi, which was registered as Criminal Complaint No. 194/1 of 2003. Learned counsel for the petitioner further pointed out that the complainant Shiv Ratan Agarwal, has been convicted in said case, filed by the petitioner before the Delhi Court, vide judgment and order dated 29.06.2009. It is pleaded on behalf of the petitioner that present criminal complaint, which is filed by respondent No. 2 is in fact a 3 counter blast to the criminal complaint, filed before Delhi Court, as such, it is abuse of process of law. 5. On behalf of the respondent No. 2, attention of this Court is drawn to the case of M.A. Rumugam Vs. Kittu (2009) 1 Supreme Court Cases 101, and it is contended that since the cause of action of both the cases are different and as such, due to conviction of respondent No. 2, in the criminal complaint, filed before Delhi Court, proceedings of criminal complaint, cannot be quashed. On going through the papers on record, this Court finds that the case in Delhi also related to same cheque No. 689260 for an amount of Rs. 3 lakhs, as such, it cannot be said that the causes of action of the two cases are different. In view of the principle of law laid down in Mahindra and Mahindra Financial Services Vs. Rajeev Dubey (2009) 1 Supreme Court Cases 706, this Court finds that the impugned proceedings, initiated subsequently by respondent No.2 in respect of the same cheque with regard to which he himself was facing trial before Delhi Court is nothing but abuse of process of law on his part. 6. For the reasons as discussed above, the impugned proceedings of criminal complaint case 1616 of 2003, Shiv Ratan Agarwal Vs. S.P. Agarwal, pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kashipur, are liable to be quashed. Accordingly, the 4 same are quashed. The petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. stands allowed. (Prafulla C. Pant, J.) Dt:26.03.2010 Sweta