Crl. Misc. No. M-12301 of 2010 (O&M) -1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl. Misc. No. M-12301 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: 05.9.2011. Jagdish Kumar ........Petitioner Vs. Bahadar Singh ......Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr. Abhinav Oberoi, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Heena Talwar, Advocate for the respondent. ..... SABINA, J. Petitioner has filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for quashing of the complaint No. 281/09 dated 19.9.2009 (Annexure P-4), under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 ('Act' for short) and all subsequent proceedings, arising therefrom, including the summoning order dated 19.9.2009 (Annexure P-5). Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the cheque amount in question has been paid to the complainant vide draft (Annexure P-1/A). The said amount has been duly encashed by the complainant. Hence, the complaint in question was liable to be quashed. Learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, has submitted that there were business dealings between the parties. The amount of ` 7500/- paid by the complainant Crl. Misc. No. M-12301 of 2010 (O&M) -2 - vide draft (Annexure P-1/A) did not relate to the cheque amount but had been paid qua subsequent liability. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that the instant petition deserves to be allowed. In the case of State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal , , 1992 Supp(1) Supreme Court Cases 335, the Apex Court has held as under:- “The following categories of cases can be stated by way of illustration wherein the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482, Cr.P.C. Can be exercised by the High Court either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently chennelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised:- (1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complainant/respondent No.2, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused. (2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Crl. Misc. No. M-12301 of 2010 (O&M) -3 - Section 156(1)of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code. (3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do no disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused. (4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a Police Officer without an order of Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code. (5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. (6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted)to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of aggrieved party. (7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly Crl. Misc. No. M-12301 of 2010 (O&M) -4 - attended with mala fide and/or where the proceedings is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge. We also give a note of caution to the effect that the power of quashing a criminal proceeding should be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare cases; that the court will not be justified in embarking upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint and that the extraordinary or inherent powers do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the court to act according to its whim or caprice The complaint in question had been filed by the respondent-complainant on account of dishonour of cheque bearing No. 765656 dated 08.5.2009 amounting to ` 7500/-. When the cheque was presented for encashment with the bank, it was dishonoured with the report 'insufficient funds'. Annexure P-2 is the notice issued by the complainant to the petitioner qua dishonour of cheque. The said notice is dated 20.7.2009. Reply to the said notice, sent by the petitioner, is Annexure P-3 dated 01.8.2009. A perusal of the reply to the legal notice reveals that the cheque in question had been issued by the petitioner. The amount due had been paid by the petitioner to Sukhwinder Pal Singh at the instance of the complainant. However, to avoid any litigation, the petitioner made the payment of ` 7500/- as Crl. Misc. No. M-12301 of 2010 (O&M) -5 - demanded vide the legal notice by the respondent vide draft dated 19.7.2009 for a sum of ` 7500/-. Thus, the petitioner had sent a draft qua the cheque amount in question along with the reply to the legal notice. A perusal of copy of the ledger, placed on record by the respondent with his reply, reveals that the draft in question bearing No. 777786 dated 29.7.2009 was duly encashed by the respondent on 4.8.2009. The complaint was filed on 19.9.2009. Since the cheque amount had been paid by the petitioner after receipt of notice from the complainant, the continuation of criminal proceedings against the petitioner would be nothing but an abuse of process of law. Accordingly, this petition is allowed. The complaint No. 281/09 dated 19.9.2009 (Annexure P-4) and all subsequent proceedings, arising therefrom, including the summoning order dated 19.9.2009 (Annexure P-5), are quashed. (SABINA) JUDGE September 05, 2011 Gurpreet