Criminal Misc. No. M-2887 of 2009 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh. Criminal Misc. No. M-2887 of 2009 Date of Decision: 25.3.2009 Satvir Singh …Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and Another …Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA. Present: Mr. P.K. Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Mehardeep Singh, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab, for respondent No.1-State. Mr. D.S. Bali, Senior Advocate with Mr. Namit Gautam, Advocate for respondent No.2. Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. (Oral) Present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of case FIR NO. 149 dated 19.11.2008 registered at Police Station City Fazilka, under Sections 420 & 406 IPC. FIR has been annexed as Annexure P2. It is stated in the FIR that petitioner Satvir Singh son of Gurjit Singh is Proprietor of M/s Guru Nanak Oil & General, Mills, Amloh and through his firm he was dealing with the complainant's firm namely M/s Singla Enterprises, Fazlika. The grievance of the complainant is that goods were being purchased by firm of accused on credit basis from Criminal Misc. No. M-2887 of 2009 2 time to time. Complainant firm deals with Commission Agents. Accused had purchased cotton seeds and Rs.85,00,000/- were due to be paid. Accused firm had issued various cheques as part payment but the cheques had bounced. Mr. P.K. Gupta, Advocate, appearing for the petitioner has stated that for these very cheques complainant had instituted complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act against the petitioner in the Court of Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Fazilka. The complaint has been annexed as Annexure P4. Mr. Gupta further submits that as per the ratio of law laid down in G.Sagar Suri v. State of U.P. 2000(1) Recent Criminal Reports 707 where a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments has been instituted, no offence under Section 420 IPC will made out. Mr. Gupta has further averred that from the perusal of FIR, it is evident that there were ongoing business transaction between petitioner/accused and complainant firm and during the course of business, the amount to be paid by the petitioner/accused outstanding was Rs.85,00,000/-. Mr. Gupta states that it is a simple business transaction, therefore, on the very inception of business transactions, no intention of cheating can be attributed. He relied upon Hotline Teletubes and Components Ltd. and Others v. State of Bihar and Another (2005) Supreme Court Cases 261, Inder Mohan Goswami and Another v. State of Uttranchal and Others (2007)12 Supreme Court Cases 1 and V.Y. Jose & Another v. State of Gujarat & Another 2009(1) Recent Criminal Reports 869 to contend that liability if any is civil in Criminal Misc. No. M-2887 of 2009 3 nature. At this stage, Mr. Bali controverted the arguments raised by Mr. Gupta. He submitted that the evidence gathered by the Investigating Agency in the form of report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. has been submitted to the trial Court. Now the case is fixed for framing of charge. Mr. Bali states that statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. which form part of challan i.e. report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. and documents annexed thereto are not before this Court. Mr. Bali states that the trial Court will be in a better position to appreciate the contentions raised by Mr. Gupta. Taking into consideration submissions made by Mr. Bali, present petition is disposed off with the observation that trial Court after hearing counsel for the parties will consider and deal with the submissions raised and pass a detailed order. (Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia) Judge March 25, 2009 “DK”