IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. M-2224 of 2010 Date of decision : 25.1.2010 Subhash Chander …. Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and another …. Respondents Present: Mr. Veneet Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. **** S.S. SARON, J. The petitioner seeks quashing of FIR No.210 dated 29.9.2009 registered at Police Station Jandiala, Amritsar City for the offence under Section 420 IPC. As per the allegation in the FIR, it had been alleged by the complainant Jaswant Singh (respondent No.2) that he is Manager of Hari Simran Singh and does business of giving Orchards on lease. Hari Simran Singh had given him the power of attorney in this regard and the lease money of the Orchard also used to be received by him (respondent No.2). The lease for the year 2007 to 2009 was given by one Daljit Singh to Subash Chander (petitioner) from 13.4.2007 to 13.4.2009 for Rs.18 lacs. The petitioner had paid Rs.13 lacs in the presence of Daljit Singh aforesaid. Later he gave a cheque dated 26.11.2008 drawn on Central Bank of India, Sharifpura, Amritsar for a sum of Rs.3 lacs. It was inquired from the bank and it transpired Crl. Misc. No. M-2224 of 2010 [2] that there was no money in the said account of the petitioner. Therefore, a complaint has been filed in the Court. The complainant is to receive remaining amount of Rs.2 lacs from the petitioner Subash Chander and when they asked him for the same, he stated that he had used the money by selling the fruits in the Orchards and cheated them by giving a false cheque and he is not repaying the money. Leaned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the dispute is primarily of a civil in nature. Besides, where proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act have been initiated, simultaneous proceedings for cheating cannot be initiated. During the course of hearing it is not in dispute that charge in the case has not been framed. In the facts and circumstances, it would be just and expedient if the contentions as raised herein are raised and considered by the competent Court at the time of consideration of framing charge. It is well-known that at the time of framing of charge, the Court is not to act as a mouthpiece or a post office of the prosecution and it can sift and weight evidence for the limited purpose of framing of charge. Besides, all the necessary material with regard to the claim of the petitioner and also the charge report as also the stand of the complainant are before the said Court. In view of the above, the Crl. Misc. petition is dismissed at this stage being pre-mature with liberty to the petitioner to raise his contentions before the concerned Court at the time of consideration of framing of charge. (S.S. SARON) JUDGE January 25, 2010 amit