1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR ORDER S.B.CRIMINAL MISC. PETITION NO. 556/2005 (Sunam Ali V/s State of Rajasthan & Anr.) Date of Order : 10/07/2007 PRESENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.R.PANWAR Mr. R.S.Gill, for the petitioner. Mr. Ashok Upadhyay, P.P. BY THE COURT:- By the instant criminal misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the petitioner has challenged the order dated 07.02.2005 passed by Additional Sessions Judge No.2, Sri Ganganagar (for short 'the revisional court' hereinafter) whereby the revision petition filed by the petitioner against the order dated 25.1.2003 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Suratgarh (for short 'the trial court' hereinafter), was dismissed. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and public prosecutor for the State. Perused the orders passed by the trial court as well as the revisional court as also the record. The petitioner himself admitted that he was in need 2 of the money and therefore, he took a loan of Rs. 60,000/- from the non-petitioner No.2 Labhsingh and issued a cheque for the said amount. The cheque when presented by Labhsingh to the bank was dishonoured for want of sufficient fund and thus it was returned unpaid with the endorsement that there is no sufficient fund to honour the cheque. Thereafter, Labhsingh issued a notice as envisaged under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short 'the Act' hereinafter) demanding the cheque amount within 15 days from the date of receipt of the notice which the petitioner failed to pay and therefore, the non- petitioner No.2 filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Act within the stipulated time. On an FIR lodged by the petitioner, the police did not find case and filed negative final report. On protest petition, the trial court considering the material available on record did not find case and therefore, dismissed the complaint on the ground that it is admitted case of the petitioner complainant that he was in need of Rs. 60,000/- and therefore, took a loan from the non-petitioner No.2, for which a cheque was issued and on presentation to the bank it was dishonoured and therefore, in order to counter the complaint case, a criminal case has been instituted. The order of the trial court came to be challenged before the revisional court. By an elaborate and well reasoned order, the revisional court dismissed the revision petition. 3 On close scrutiny of the material available on record, in my view, the instant criminal case is in order to preempt the complaint case instituted by the non-petitioner No.2 against the petitioner under Section 138 of the Act. In Sunil Kumar Vs. Escorts Yamaha Motors Ltd. and Others 1999 SCC (Cr.) 1466, Hon'ble Supreme Court held that apart from the fact that the said cheques did not make out the offence of cheating or criminal breach of trust, attendant circumstances indicated that FIR was lodged to preempt the filing of complaint under Section 138 of the Act against the appellant therein and in those circumstances, the Apex Court held that the quashing of the FIR was well within the jurisdiction of the High Court as the FIR amounted to abuse of process of the Court. A similar view has been taken by this Court in S.K.Gulati and Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan and another 2004(3) R.Cr.D., 250 (Raj.). In view of the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sunil Kumar Vs. Escorts Yamaha Motors Ltd. & Ors. (supra) no case for interference is made out. In my view, the trial court and the revisional court were justified in dismissing the complaint. The criminal misc. petition has no force and it is therefore, dismissed. (H.R.PANWAR),J. rp