Filing of a second complaint for the same dishonoured cheque amounts to abuse of process of law.

( 1 ) THE petitioners have not knocked the door of this Court under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter called the Code) praying for quashing of criminal proceeding being G. R. Case No. 1275 of 1994 arising out of Jalpaiguri Kotwali P. S Case No. 370 dated 11. 10. 94 under section 420 of the indian Penal Code (in short IPC) now pending in the Court of the learned sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate (in short SDJM) - now redesignated as ACJM and also the chargesheet filed in the said G. R. Case in CRR No. 1142 of 1996 and also for quashing of complaint case being C. R. No. 317 of 1994 now pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Court, Jalpaiguri under sections 138 and 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (hereinafter referred to as NI act) through revisional application being CRR No. 2753/96. As both the criminal proceedings arose out of same facts and parties are same as well as points of law involved are same in these two revisional applications, I intend to dispose of both the criminal revisional applications by this common judgment and order.

( 2 ) BEFORE entering into the merit of the case and rival contention of the parties, it would. be fruitful to reproduce the facts of the case and I intend to mention first the facts concerning CRR No:2753 of 1996.

( 3 ) O. P. No. 2 Amal Kumar Das as complainant instituted complaint case C. R. No. 317 of 1994 against the present petitioners as accused persons under sections 138 and 141 of the NI Act before the Court of the learned Chief Judicial magistrate, Jalpaiguri. It was alleged in the complaint that the complainant is a reputed Government contractor and he is carrying on his contract business under different Government departments. The accused No. 1 namely, M/s. Debendra Bejoy Ghosh and Ors. is a partnership firm and accused Nos. 2, 3 and 4 (present petitioners) are the constituent partners of accused No. 1 firm. The accused No. 1 firm also carries on different works as contractor and they were allotted the jobs of Jalpaiguri Irrigation Division, Coochbehar Irrigation division, Teesta Barrage Project since 1984 and for the purpose of convenience of their business the accused Nos. 2 to 4 established a branch office of accused no. 1 firm at Jalpaiguri town.

( 4 ) IN the month of May. 1991, the accused Nos. 2 to 4 came to the house of complainant and disclosed to the complainant that they had been facing financial hardship and due to lack of hard cash they would not be able to carry out the works allotted to them from different Government departments and they demanded help of money as loan to the tune of Rs. 5,50,000/ -. The complainant was hesitating, to pay such big amount as loan but the accused petitioners promised that an additional amount of Rs. 2. 5 lakhs would be paid along with the original amount within March, 1993. Accordingly, the O. P. No. 2 advanced a loan of Rs. 5. 57 lakhs to the petitioner by instalments till August, 1991. The petitioners thereafter failed to make payment of the said amount to the O. P. No. 2 within stipulated time and on repeated reminders given by O. P. No. 2, the accused petitioners assured that they would make payment of the amount within May, 1994.

( 5 ) IN the first week of June, 1994, the accused persons came to Jalpaiguri and the complainant contacted with them at Oodlabari and demanded payment of the amount borrowed by the accused petitioners and the accused petitioners agreed to pay principal amount and refused to pay additional amount of rs. 2,50,000/ -. It resulted into dispute between the parties but, at the intervention of common friends the dispute was settled and according to the settlement the accused Nos. 2 to 4 made payment of a sum of Rs. 6,40,000/- by an account payee cheque vide cheque No. 439460 dated 9. 6. 94 drawn on the allahabad Bank, Jalpaiguri.

( 6 ) THE O. P. No. 2 complainant after receiving the said cheque deposited the said cheques with his banker namely, the In