1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.2951 OF 2008 1. Dhananjay s/o Santukrao Jawalekar, Age 40 years, Occu. Business, r/o Sudarshan Nagar, N-11, HUDCO, Aurangabad. 2. Rohini w/o Dhananjay Jawalekar, Age 35 years, Occu: Household, r/o N-11, HUDCO, Aurangabad. ...APPLICANTS VERSUS 1. The State of Maharashtra. 2. Laxman s/o Dashrath Patil, Age: 57 years, Occu: Pensioner, r/o N-9, H-164/3, HUDCO, Aurangabad. ...RESPONDENTS ... Mr. K.K.Kulkarni, Advocate, for the applicants. Mr. P.M.Shinde, A.P.P., for respondent no.1/State. Respondent no.2, though served, absent. ... CORAM: K.U.CHANDIWAL, J. DATE: 11/8/2009 P.C.:- 1. Heard learned Counsel for the accused/applicant. Rule. With the consent of respective 2 parties heard forthwith. 2. Interference, by virtue of provisions of Section 482 of Cr.P.C., in FIR No.I-233/2007 dt. 3rd Nov.,2007, for the offense under Sections 420, 506 and 34 of IPC, registered at CIDCO Police Station, Aurangabad, is sought. 3. The applicant no.1, being the sub-broker in shares, he approached respondent no.2 and briefed him about his business and requested him to invest in shares. Consequently, according to respondent no.2 ( original complainant), he has furnished an amount of Rs.17,850/- to the applicant no.1, for shares to be purchased, by two cheques. 4. In discharge of liability of Rs. 73,850/- by the accused/applicant two cheques were issued. Dis-honour thereof gave rise for prosecution for an offense under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act vide SCC No.2451/2007. However, since the accused/applicant deposited the amount, collected by respondent no.2, there was withdrawal purshis (Exh.16) in the said proceedings and the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, by order dt.3rd Dec.,2008, disposed of the complaint under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. 3 5. It is a subsequent discovery, during the pendency of the said proceedings under Section 138, by lodging FIR, referred above, for the offense under Section 420, 506 and 34 of IPC. 6. The averments in the subsequent proceedings, more or less, are in tune to the subject matter of proceedings under Section 138 which is now terminated. The only difference is impleading wife of the present applicant in the said proceedings, who was not party in the prosecution under Section 138. 7. I quite see that since there was already agitation of claim by respondent no.2 in SCC No. 2451/2007, which has been rightly addressed to by virtue of withdrawal order dt.3rd Dec.,2008, there could not have been anything left over for further prosecution as against accused/applicant and particularly vide separate proceedings referred above, giving rise to FIR No.I-233/2007. 8. The allegations are, as stated earlier, being repetition and no new grounds are discovered, could not have been further prosecuted. The allegations are, indeed, multiplication and it amounts to abuse of process. 9. The Hon'ble Apex Court, in the matter of G.Sagar Suri and another V. State of U.P. and 4 others ( AIR 2000 SUPREME COURT 754) in a matter similarly placed, for an offense under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, the complainant therein had prosecuted accused for an offense under Sections 406 and 420 of IPC for the same events. The Apex Court observed that such prosecution cannot further be entertained and it should not be treated as a short cut for a decree of money. 10. The prosecution, if it is allowed to be continued will be resulting into a humiliation, harassment to the applicant herein and his wife. His wife, indeed, has no role in the monetary transaction of so called investment by the original complainant. The continuation of the proceedings will be resulting in adding harassment. The inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. is wide enough, however, it is to be sparingly and carefully applied. This is one of such cases where such discretion and jurisdiction of this Court is to be applied. Section 482 of Cr.P.C. comes into play in three situations, as has been settled, viz: (i) to give an effect to any order, (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or, (iii) otherwise to secure the ends of justice. 11. Reading the complaint referred above, it is abuse of process. No case to show that accused 5 had fraudulent or dishonest intention at the time of making promise or representation. Consequently, the proceedings initiated against the accused/applicants, by virtue of FIR No.I-233/2007 dt.3.11.2007, registered at CIDCO Police Station, Aurangabad, are quashed. Application allowed. Rule made absolute accordingly. (K.U.CHANDIWAL) JUDGE ... agp/2951-08crapl