The central legal point established in the judgment is the application of the principles for quashing FIRs, emphasizing the need for sound and reasonable material to rule out the assertions contained in the charges and prevent abuse of the court process.

ORDER

1. Petitioner has preferred this criminal misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of F.I.R. No.278/2018 registered at Police Station Anantpura, Kota City for the offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 383, 386, 504 and 406 IPC.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case. Complainantrespondent No.2 has lodged the present FIR with ulterior motive. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the Complainant-respondent No.2 had taken Rs.4 lacs for domestic need from the petitioner and gave two cheques bearing No.184251 dated 30.09.2015 amount of Rs.1,50,000/- and bearing No.184246 dated 30.09.2015 amount of Rs.2,50,000/-.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the said cheques were dishonoured on account of ’insufficient fund’ and petitioner had given a notice to the complainant-respondent No.2. After that, petitioner had filed a complaint against the complainant-respondent No.2 under Section 138 of N. I. Act in the Competent Court in the year 2016. After that, complainantrespondent No.2 had filed the present FIR against the petitioner on 01.06.2018 regarding same cheques. So, the present FIR be quashed.

4. Learned Public Prosecutor as well as learned counsel for the complainant have opposed the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner and submitted that after investigation, Investigating Officer has proved the offence(s) under Sections 386 and 504 IPC against the petitioner. They further submitted that the petitioner can take all the averments at the time of charge. So, petition filed by the petitioner be dismissed.

5. I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the respondent as well as learned Public Prosecutor.

6. The Hon’ble Apex court has dealt with the proposition of law pertaining to quashing of FIR/complaint/all criminal proceedings initiated against an accused by High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. in catena of judgments. Particularly, in the case of Prashant Bharti v. State of NCT of Delhi, reported in AIR 2013 SC 2753, Hon’ble the Supreme Court has held as under:

23. Based on the factors canvassed in the foregoing paragraphs, we would delineate the following steps to determine the veracity of a prayer for quashing, raised by an accused by invoking the power vested in the High Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure:

(i). Step one, whether the material relied upon by the accused is sound, reasonable, and indubitable, i.e., the material is of sterling and impeccable quality?

(ii). Step two, whether the material relied upon by the accused, would rule out the assertions contained in the charges levelled against the accused, i.e., the material is sufficient to reject and overrule the factual assertions contained in the complaint, i.e., the material is such, as would persuade a reasonable person to dismiss and condemn the factual basis of the accusations as false.

(iii). Step three, whether the material relied upon by the accused, has not been refuted by the prosecution/complainant; and/or the material is such, that it cannot be justifiably refuted by the prosecution/complainant?

(iv). Step four, whether proceeding with the trial would result in an abuse of process of the court, and would not serve the ends of justice?

7. If the answer to all the steps is in the affirmative, judicial conscience of the High Court should persuade it to quash such criminalproceedings, in exercise of power vested in it under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Such exercise of power, besides doing justice to the accused, would save precious court time, which would otherwise be wasted in holding such a trial (as well as, proceedings arising therefrom) specially when, it is clear that the same would not conclude in the conviction of the accused. In the landmark decision of State of Haryana and Ors. Vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal and Ors. [1992 Supp (1) SCC