1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. 14016-M of 2005 Date of Decision: 19.11.2008 *** Ram Avtar .. Petitioner Vs. State of Haryana & Anr. .. Respondents. With Crl. Misc. No. 11111-M of 2005 *** Subhash Jain .. Petitioner Vs. M/s Rama Sanitary. .. Respondent and Crl. Misc. No. 15403-M of 2007 *** Ram Avtar .. Petitioner Vs. Subhash Jain & Anr. .. Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR, Present:- Mr. Kapil Aggarwal, Advocate, for Ram Avtar (petitioner in Crl. Misc. No.15403-M of 2007 and 14016-M of 2005 and respondent in Crl. Misc. No. 11111-M of 2005). Mr. R.S. Chahar, Advocate for Subhash Jain (petitioner in Crl. Misc. No.1111-M of 2005 and respondent in Crl. Misc. Nos. 14016-M of 2005 and Crl. Misc. No. 15403-M of 2007). Mr. Tarun Aggarwal, Sr. DAG Haryana *** ARVIND KUMAR, J. The above referred petitions are being disposed off by this 2 common order passed in Crl. Misc. No. 14016-M of 2005. What emerges out from the record is that multiple litigation is going on between the parties. Subhash Jain has got registered FIR No.182 dated 22.4.2003, under Sections 380, 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC against Ram Avtar at Police Station City, Hisar, with the allegations that Ram Avtar had mis-used his signed cheque which was stolen from his office and by fraudulent means tried to cheat the complainant by encashing the said cheque. In that case the investigating agency, on completion of investigation has submitted the final report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. Likewise Ram Avtar has got instituted a complaint case under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act against Subhash Jain with the averments that accused Subhash Jain purchased sanitary items from him and in order to discharge his outstanding liability issued a cheque for an amount of Rs.15 lacs, which on presentation was dishonoured and that the accused failed to make the payment thereof. In that case, the accused Subhash Jain after his summoning under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act has been served with a notice of accusation for commission of aforesaid offence in the said complaint vide order dated 27.11.2003 and the revision preferred against the said order has been dismissed by the Revisional court vide order dated 20.11.2004. In nutshell the whole controversy revolves around one cheque and both the parties are staking their claim on the basis thereof. In Crl. Misc. No. 14016-M of 2005 Ram Avtar has sought quashing of impugned FIR and final report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. filed therein and by way of Crl. Misc. No. 15403-M of 2007 he has also sought directions to the Court below to decide the complaint filed by him under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act while in Crl. Misc. No.11111-M of 2005 Subhash Jain is seeking quashing of the aforesaid complaint pending against him under Section 138 of the Act ibid. From the averments made by the respective parties, it is emphatically clear that both the petitions seeking quashing of FIR and criminal complaint under Section 138 of the Act ibid, involve disputed questions of fact, which this Court is not required to determine at this stage. There is no dispute that no hard and fast rule can be laid down to the cases in which the High Court can exercise its jurisdiction of quashing of the FIR, but the same has to be exercised sparingly, carefully and with 3 great caution and has only to be exercised in rarest and exceptional cases and the present cases do not fall in any of the category since it can be established by the parties by leading their respective evidence as to whether there was any business transaction between them and the cheque was issued for discharging the outstanding liability or that the said cheque was mis- used and a fraudulent attempt was made by Ram Avtar to encash the said cheque, which was missing from the possession of Subhash Jain. That apart, the petitioner Subhash Jain has already been served with a notice of accusation in the complaint case under Section 138 N.I. Act by the trial court and his revision against the said order has already been dismissed and it has been held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Manjula Sinha Vs. State of U.P. & Ors. 2007(3) RCR (Crl.) 779, that question of quashing does not arise where the charges have been framed. So far as petitiioner Ram Avtar is concerned, he is having every opportunity to put his case before the learned trial court at the time of arguments on framing of charge. Therefore, at this juncture, no case is made out for quashing of the FIR as well as impugned complaint and accordingly Crl. Misc. No. 14016- M of 2005 and Crl. Misc. No.11111-M of 2005 stand dismissed. So far as Crl. Misc. No. 15403-M of 2007 for issuance of directions to decide criminal complaint under Section 138 NI Act is concerned, although such like directions have already been issued at Administrative side, but keeping in view the fact that the said cases are pending since 2003, the Crl. Misc. is disposed of with a direction that both the cases be transferred to one Court for the trial where the same shall be disposed of expeditiously in accordance with law. A photocopy of the order be placed in the connected petitions, referred to above. (ARVIND KUMAR) JUDGE November 19,2008 Jiten