Quashing of FIR is warranted when allegations do not establish prima facie legal ingredients for offenses, particularly under the Negotiable Instruments Act, following the requirements laid out in Sections 138 and 142.

JUDGMENT :

CHANDRA SHEKHAR JHA, J.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 as also learned A.P.P. for the State.

2. This application has been preferred under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short, the ‘Cr.P.C.’) for quashing the FIR being Raxaul P.S. Case No. 380 of 2022, registered for the offences under sections 420, 406 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (herein after referred to as the “N.I. Act”).

3. The brief facts of the case of the prosecution is that the informant namely, Pawan Kumar (opposite party no. 2), who is the Manager of Shiv Shakti Industries Private Limited having its office at Main Road, Near HDFC Bank, Raxaul, which deals with the supply of chicken feed, has alleged that in course of business transaction, his company had supplied chicken feeds to the petitioner, who runs his business in the name and style of M/s Dev Enterprises. The informant further alleged that an outstanding amount of Rs. 28,25,194/- was against the petitioner, since the year 2020- 21, and after several demands, petitioner issued a cheque of the aforesaid amount, but when the informant deposited the said cheque in his Bank, the same was dishonoured because of insufficient funds. It is alleged that after this incident, the informant had failed to establish any communication with the petitioner despite of his best efforts.

4. On the basis of aforesaid written application, Raxaul P.S. Case No. 380/2022 was instituted against the petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 406 of the IPC and section 138 of the N.I. Act.

5. It is submitted by learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner that lodging of FIR for dishonoring of cheque is a non-approved concept under the law. It is submitted that parties were doing their business together. It is pointed out that as per FIR, the cheque was dishonored, as issued by the petitioner on 11.02.2022, which was duly informed to the informant namely, Pawan Kumar on 16.02.2022 by his bankers, but instead of giving any legal notice to the petitioner, the informant straightway, after a gap of six months, lodged the present FIR against the petitioner for the offences punishable under section 420 & 406 of the IPC and section 138 of the N.I. Act.

6. It is pointed out by learned counsel for the petitioner that in terms of section 142(a) of the N.I. Act, no FIR for the offences punishable under Section 138 of the N.I. Act is maintainable as the same can be brought upon a complaint made in writing, after due compliance of legal provisions as available under section 138(c) and 142 of the N.I. Act.

7. It is also submitted by learned counsel that narration of FIR nowhere suggests prima-facie legal ingredients of cheating and criminal breach of trust, as there was no occasion for any entrustment, as parties were doing business together.

8. Taking note of the allegation, as raised through the present FIR, it is submitted by learned counsel that no cognizable offence, as alleged, is made out against the petitioner and, therefore, the present FIR is fit to be set aside/quashed. It is also pointed out by learned counsel that petitioner lodged a money suit bearing 03 of 2025 for recovery of cheque amount, which is pending before the court of learned Sub Judge – XII, Motihari, and, therefore, the present FIR was lodged unoccasioned to create a pressure of criminal litigation upon the petitioner.

9. While concluding argument, learned counsel relied upon the legal report of the Hon’ble Supreme Court as available through G. Sagar Suri & Anr. V State of U.P. reported in (2000) 2 SCC 636 and State of