ORDER :

1. Heard the learned counsel, Mr. K. Lollen, appearing for the petitioners. Also heard the learned Public Prosecutor, Mr. J. Tsering, appearing for the State of Arunachal Pradesh.

2. This is an application under section 482 of the CrPC praying for quashing of the FIR in Longding P.S. Case No. 43/2020, registered under section 420 of the Penal Code, 1860.

3. The 2 petitioners intended to buy one Truck from the informant. They were to pay Rs. 2,50,000 only by cheque and the remaining amount of Rs. 15,000 only in cash. The cheque was issued and the Truck was taken away. When the informant presented the cheque in the Bank for encashment, it was refused because of insufficient fund. Therefore, the informant filed the FIR alleging that the petitioners had cheated him.

4. The learned counsel, Mr. Lollen, appearing for the petitioners, has submitted that this is a pure civil dispute which has been given the colour of a criminal case just to harass the petitioners. The learned counsel, Mr. Lollen, has relied upon a judgment of the hon'ble Supreme Court that was rendered in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335. The learned counsel has further relied upon paragraph 102 of the said judgment, which is reads as under—

“102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under article 226 or the inherent powers under section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we give the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any piease, clearly defined and sufficiently channellized and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised.

(1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused.

(2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a magistrate within the purview of section 155(2) of the Code.

(3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FDR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused.

(4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under section 155(2) of the Code.

(5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.

(6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party.

(7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.”

5. Mr. Lollen, the learned counsel, further relied upon another recent judgment of the Supreme Court t