IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No. M-16409 of 2008 (O&M) Date of decision: 10th March, 2009 Devinder Pal … Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others … Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA Present: Mr. Sherry K. Singla, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Mehardeep Singh, Assistant Advocate General Punjab for the State. Mr. Kuldip Sanwal, Advocate for respondents No.2 to 6. KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. (ORAL) Present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of the FIR No. 57 dated 15.09.2006 registered at Police Station Tripuri, District Patiala under Sections 420, 406, 120-B IPC. Grievance of the petitioner is that present FIR No. 57 dated 15.09.2006 (Annexure P-1) has been got registered against M/s Ronak Ram Banarsi Dass, Commission Agent, Shop No. 86, New Grain Market, Patiala, having its partners namely, Pawan Kumar, Anil Kumar Mittal, Vijay Kumar Gupta, Megh Raj and the petitioner Devinder Pal. A perusal of the FIR (Annexure P-1) reveals that Jai Bhagwan partner of the firm had taken an amount of Rs.1.80 lacs from Amarjit Singh in the month of July for his firm and in lieu there of, he had issued post dated cheques bearing No.950356 for Rs.1.00 lac and No.950360 for an amount of Rs.80,000/-. Thereafter, it is stated that on various occasions, Devinder Pal has and Jai Bhagwan took loan and had Criminal Misc. No. M-16409 of 2008 (O&M) issued cheques. Admittedly, these cheques were presented to the Bank and they bounced, as account of the firm was closed. Counsel for the petitioner has contended that complainant, in the present case, are Amarjit Singh son of Nachhattar Singh, Sukhwinder Kaur wife of Amarjit Singh, Nachhattar Singh son of Sant Singh, Karnail Kaur wife of Nachhattar Singh and Bharpur Singh son of Balwinder Singh. Counsel for the petitioner has drawn my attention to complaint (Annexure P-2) preferred by Nachhattar Singh under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act and Section 420 IPC. Counsel has submitted that the very cheques, for which impugned FIR has been lodged, a complaint (Annexure P-2) was also filed by Nachhattar Singh under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act and Section 420 IPC. He has further submitted that another complaint for the cheques, specified in the FIR, has been filed by Karnail Kaur wife of Nachhattar Singh, which is annexed as Annexure P-3. Counsel has submitted that in complaints (Annexure P-2 and P-3), petitioner has been summoned for offences under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act and the summoning Court came to the conclusion that petitioner is not to be summoned for offence under Section 420 IPC. Counsel for the petitioner has made two-fold submission before this Court. Firstly, it has been submitted that once for the same cheques, complaint under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act has been instituted, complainant is barred from prosecuting the petitioner for the same cheques by lodging the FIR under Section 420 IPC. Secondly, it has been submitted that once the summoning Court has come to the conclusion that petitioner is not to be tried for offence under Section 420 IPC, initiation of the proceedings in pursuance of impugned FIR under Section 420 IPC are misuse and abuse of the process of law. To fortify 2 Criminal Misc. No. M-16409 of 2008 (O&M) this submission, counsel for the petitioner has relied upon ‘G.Sagar Suri v. State of U.P.’ 2000 (1) RCR (Criminal) 707. Before these contentions could be dealt with, Mr.Kuldip Sanwal appearing for the complaint respondents, has very fairly stated that during the pendency of the present petition, the matter has been amicably settled. The firm of the petitioner has got effected a sale deed in favour of the complainant respondent No.2 Amarjit Singh. Therefore, he has stated that present FIR may be quashed due to compromise effected between the parties. In view of the statement made by Mr. Kuldip Sanwal, impugned FIR No. 57 dated 15.09.2006 registered at Police Station Tripuri, District Patiala under Sections 420, 406, 120-B IPC, along with all subsequent proceedings, is quashed. With these observations, present petition is disposed off. [KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA] JUDGE March 10, 2009 rps 3