Crl. Misc. No.M-5551 of 2008 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No.M-5551 of 2008 Date of decision : 8.04.2010 Gian Singh and others .... Petitioners VERSUS State of Punjab and another ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA Present: Ms. Jatinder Jit Kaur, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. Mehardeep Singh, DAG, Punjab. KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. (Oral) The present petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking quashing of case FIR No.301 dated 26.9.2006 registered at Police Station Division No.6, Jalandhar under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 120-B and 506 IPC, copy whereof is at Annexure P-1. The controversy in the present case revolves around cheque No.1700391 dated 4.10.2005 for Rs.2.00 lacs drawn on Bank of Punjab Ltd., Jalandhar. Petitioner no.2 Ramjit Singh had filed a complaint (Annexure P-2) against respondent No.2 Ms. Mandeep Malhotra that her cheque had bounced and returned by the bank with the remarks "insufficient fund". In the complaint, Annexure P-2, respondent No.2 has been summoned to stand trial. It is stated that as a counter-blast to complaint (Annexure P-2) respondent No.2 has Crl. Misc. No.M-5551 of 2008 -2- lodged the impugned FIR as Annexure P-1. In this FIR, it is stated that complainant was deceived to part with the cheque on the ground that accused will facilitate sanction of loan in favour of the complainant. In the impugned FIR and complaint filed by the petitioner the question to be determined is the validity of cheque. Therefore, what is a defence of the complainant in the complaint (Annexure P-2) instituted by petitioner no.2 is her version in the present FIR. There is apprehension that in the two parallel proceedings, contradictory findings may emerge and may cause judicial embarrassment. To save this eventuality, as stated by courts from time to time, it will be the interest of the parties that the proceedings emanating from the impugned FIR and the complaint (Annexure P-2) are tried by one Court separately but simultaneously. Sh. Mehardeep Singh, DAG, Punjab, appearing for the State has submitted that report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. in the proceedings arising out of the impugned FIR shall be submitted in the Court of Illaqa Magistrate within 15 days. Thereafter, the Sessions Judge, Jalandhar is directed to assign complaint (Annexure P-2) and the proceedings arising out of impugned FIR (Annexure P-1) to the one Court. The Court to whom the proceedings are assigned shall decide both the cases separately but simultaneously. In the present case, FIR was lodged in the year 2006. Taking into consideration long pendency of the litigation, personal appearance of the petitioners before the trial Court is exempted subject to their filing an undertaking that they shall cause appearance Crl. Misc. No.M-5551 of 2008 -3- as and when required by the trial Court. They shall also file an undertaking that the evidence, if any, recorded in their absence but in the presence of their counsel shall be binding upon them. The trial Court may also incorporate any other condition in the undertaking to be submitted by the petitioners. The petition stands disposed of. Copy of this order attested by Special Secretary of this Court be handed over to Sh. Mehardeep Singh, DAG, Punjab for onward transmission and compliance. (KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA) 8.04.2010 JUDGE manju