1. This judgment shall dispose of the petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) seeking issue of appropriate orders/directions for quashing of notice/summons dated 17.07.2000 issued by the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate, Patiala House, New Delhi summoning the petitioner Ravi Oberoi under Section 420/468/406 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) in addition to other accused persons and for quashing of the criminal proceedings emanating therefrom on the basis of a complaint filed by respondent No.1 on 09.10.1998 which has been described by the petitioner as the second complaint.

2. It is the case of the petitioners that the complaint dated 09.10.1998 (hereinafter referred to as the „second complaint?) is based upon the same transaction and on the basis of same allegations which form the basis of earlier complaint filed by the respondent No.1 against the petitioners and respondents No. 2 to 4 under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (N.I. Act) read with Sections 403/406/420 IPC read with Section 120B of the IPC. The said complaint was filed in November, 1996, of which cognizance has been taken by the Court of concerned Metropolitan Magistrate vide order dated 12.02.1997 summoning the petitioner and others. The said complaint is still pending. 3. It has been submitted that respondent No.1/complainant in the second complaint suppressed the factum of filing of the earlier complaint as stated above. It is also stated that respondent No.1 also filed a petition under Section 433/434/439 of the Companies Act against respondent No.2 wherein winding up orders dated 18.08.1992 stands passed on the creditors/petitioners. It is submitted that cognizance of the second complaint has also been taken by the MM concerned who issued summons for the appearance of the petitioner and other accused persons on 17.07.2000 which is malafide and a gross abuse of the process of Court. The said complaint had been filed with ulterior motives for harrasing and coercing the petitioners to succumb to unreasonable and unjustifiable demands of respondent No.1 in respect of the loan advanced.

4. Notice of the petition was accepted by learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1. The other respondents also casued appearance through a learned advocate while the respondent No.2 was served through official liquidator.

5. Respondent No.1 has opposed the petition and has also filed his written submissions. According to him the petition is malafide and misconceived. It has been submitted that the petitioner has tried to invoke the rule of double jeopardy despite the fact that the two complaints are for different offences. It has been submitted that even though the cause of action of the two complaints arises from the same initial transaction, i.e., a loan of Rs.1 crore but it is quite distinct and separate from each other and thus the arguments addressed on behalf of the petitioner that trial for the same offence at the two places is not applicable in this case. The respondents have given a chart disclosing the difference of allegations and the nature of offences which are sought to be proved in two different complaints.

6. As regards the previous complaint, it has been submitted that the said complaint is based upon dishonor of a cheque of Rs.1 crore issued on behalf of respondent No.2 to the complainant for which despite the service of notice payment was not made and therefore all the accused persons became liable to be prosecuted under Section 138 of the N.I. Act and were made as accused in the complaint which is pending in Tis Hazari as they are liable to be punished under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. It is also submitted that in terms of the agreement the funds, so raised, were to be used for specific purposes but the accused persons cheated the complainant and misappropriated the funds as such all of them were also liable to be punished under Section 420/406 of the IPC which are the offences for which the firs