JUDGMENT

Maheshan Nagaprasanna, J. - The petitioners are before this Court calling in question the proceedings in Crime No. 88 of 2021 registered on 22-07-2021 for the offence punishable under Section 420 of the IPC.

2. Heard Sri S.G. Bhagavan, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri B.J. Rohith, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No. 1 and Sri Deviprasad Shetty, learned counsel for respondent No. 2.

3. Brief facts leading to the filing of the present petition as borne out from the pleadings, are as follows:-

The 2nd respondent is the complainant. The petitioners were the Directors of the Company by name Headwin Exim Private Limited ('the Company' for short). The Company was engaged in the business of import. It appears that the Directors of the Company approached the 2nd respondent/complainant seeking financial assistance to meet immediate financial needs that arose in its business. A transaction between the two take place and the complainant claims to have assisted the Company with finance of Rs. 30,00,000/- initially and Rs. 5,00,000/- later. The financial assistance was rendered between July 2015 and September, 2015 against which, the Company had issued five cheques totally to the aforesaid amount. The cheques when presented for realization were returned with the endorsement "account closed". The legal requirements necessary for initiation of proceedings invoking the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 ('the Act' for short) was taken up by the complainant and later initiated proceedings under Section 138 of the Act in C.C. No. 426 of 2020. The same is pending consideration before the competent Court. The case at hand does not concern with C.C. No. 426 of 2020 filed under the Act. It is what the complainant does after invoking the provisions of the Act is what concerns the present petition.

4. On the same instrument of issuance of cheques for which proceedings had initiated under Section 138 of the Act, the complainant registered a private complaint invoking Section 200 of the Cr. P.C. alleging cheating under Section 420 of the IPC on the part of the Company and its Directors. The learned Magistrate, on registration of the said private complaint, directs investigation under Section 156(3) of the Cr. P.C. The Police pursuant to the aforesaid direction under Section 156(3) of the Cr. P.C., registers a FIR in Crime No. 88 of 2021. It is at that juncture, the petitioners have knocked the doors of this Court in the subject petition. The petitioners are accused 4 and 5 in the FIR.

5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the complainant having invoked the jurisdiction of the competent criminal Court by filing a complaint alleging offence punishable under Section 138 of the Act could not have again registered a complaint for the offence of cheating. It would amount to filing two complaints for the same offence. He would further submit that the private complaint so registered for the offence punishable under Section 420 IPC runs counter to the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Priyanka Srivastava v. State of U.P., reported in (2015) 6 SCC 287 as there is no indication of following the mandate enunciated in Priyanka Srivastava and he would seek that the petition be allowed and proceedings be quashed.

6. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 2 would vehemently refute the submissions and contends that invoking Section 138 of the Act will not preclude the complainant from registering a crime for offence punishable either under Section 406 or 420 of the IPC as it does amount to cheating and inducement on the part of the accused. It is a matter of trial in which the petitioners have to come out clean and seeks dismissal of the petition.

7. The learned High Court Government Pleader in his submissions toe lines of the learned counsel for respondent No. 2.

8. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the respective learned counsel and perus