THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.G.SHANKAR CRIMINAL PETITION No.3411 of 2008 Date: 16.11.2011 Between: Smt. Ratnakumari ..... Petitioner. AND The State of A.P., Rep by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad and another. .....Respondents. The Court made the following: THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.G.SHANKAR CRIMINAL PETITION No.3411 of 2008 ORDER: Notice was served upon the 2nd respondent. No one represents the 2nd respondent. The petitioner seeks for quashing of the First Information Report in Crime No.53 of 2008 on the ground that on the same facts, a criminal case already had been filed and is pending before the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Banswada. 2. A private complaint was lodged by the 2nd respondent before the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Bansuwada under Section 190 Cr.P.C. He sought for referring the same to police under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. The learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class referred the matter to the police. Basing upon the reference, First Information Report in Crime No.53 of 2008 was registered against the petitioner. 3 . Sri N. Harinath, learned counsel for the petitioner drew my attention to Para No.4 of the complaint. It was alleged by the 2nd respondent that the petitioner issued a cheque in discharge of a subsisting debt and that he issued the cheque with full knowledge that there were no funds in the bank when the cheque was issued. His claim is that the petitioner issued the cheque with a view to cheat him and that the petitioner consequently is liable for punishment under Section 420 IPC. The learned counsel for the petitioner also pointed out that the 2nd respondent filed C.C.No.2078 of 2007 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Banswada against the petitioner under Section 138, Negotiable Instruments Act and that the case is pending. He submitted that multiple complaints cannot be lodged on the same set of facts. His contention is that the 2nd respondent should have raised all his contentions in one complaint including the offences under Section 138, Negotiable Instruments Act as well as under Section 420 IPC. In support of his contention, he placed reliance upon DAMODAR S. PRABHU Vs. SAYED BABALAL H. In that case, the Supreme Court observed that a complainant should invariably state in the complaint that no complaint has been filed in any other Court under the same transaction and that multiple complaints on the same transactions would not be maintainable. In the present case, the basis of the First Information Report is the issuance of the cheque and its bouncing. The bouncing of the cheque is also the subject matter of C.C.No.2078 of 2007. I, therefore, consider that the two complaints do not lie on the same facts albeit one complaint was for the offence under Section 420 IPC and the other complaint was for the offence under Section 138, Negotiable Instruments Act. The 2nd respondent ought to have raised both the offences in the same complaint. He is not permitted to file separatez complaints in respect of each of the offences that the petitioner allegedly committed. 4. I am in agreement with the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that this complaint is a repetition of the earlier complaint and that the present case arises from the same set of facts on the basis of which C.C.No.2078 of 2007 is pending. Consequently, this complaint is bad and is not maintainable. Therefore, the complaint in First Information Report in Crime No.53 of 2008, Banswada Police Station is hereby quashed. 5. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed. _________________________ JUSTICE K.G.SHANKAR Date:16.11.2011 mrb