Back
2010 Supreme(P&H) 1788
PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
Sabina, J.
Satwinder Singh
Versus
State Of Punjab
Criminal Miscellaneous No. 28506 of 2009,
Decided On : MAY 26, 2010
The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. and the principles laid down in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal to determine the justifiability of the allegations in the FIR and the need for interference.
Headnote:
Section 482 - Quashing of FIR - Code of Criminal Procedure - 379, 420 IPC - 138-A of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - 156(1) of the Code - 155(2) of the Code - The court discussed the application of Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. and the principles laid down in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal to determine whether the allegations in the FIR constituted an offense and justified the investigation. The court found that the petitioner's actions did not warrant interference and dismissed the petition.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed a petition seeking the quashing of an FIR under Sections 379, 420 IPC and subsequent proceedings. The FIR alleged that the petitioner, in connivance with others, prepared a fake cheque to cheat the complainant, who was a member of a Co-operative Society.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the allegations against the petitioner did not warrant interference and dismissed the petition.
Issues: The issues revolved around the application of Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., the principles laid down in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, and the allegations in the FIR regarding the preparation of a fake cheque to cheat the complainant.
Ratio Decidendi: The court applied the principles laid down in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal to determine whether the allegations in the FIR constituted an offense and justified the investigation. It found that the petitioner's actions did not warrant interference.
Final Decision: The petition seeking the quashing of the FIR and subsequent proceedings was dismissed.
1. Petitioners have filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short Cr.P.C.) seeking quashing of FIR No. 133 dated 29.8.2009 under Sections 379, 420 IPC registered at Police Station Sadar District Faridkot and all the subsequent proceeding arising thereto. The contents of the FIR (Annexure P1) reads as under:-
"1.The complainant is resident of village Tehna and is agriculturist by profession and there is a co-operative society in the village Tehna whose Secretary is Angrej Singh and Parminder Singh alias Mochni is the Watchman. Both Angrej Singh and Parminder Singh are close relatives of Satwinder Singh.
2. That the complainant is the member in the village Co-operative Society, Society has issued a cheque book bearing cheque No. 030481 to 030500 which was in the possession of Secretary because this cheque was not in any other use other than the society.
3. That on 29.1.2008, the complainant through cheque No. 304091 has withdrawn cash payment, cheque No. 030493 dated 9.6.2008 withdrawn cash payment, cheque No. 030493 dated 9.6.2008 withdrawn Rs.l870/-for 4 bags of DAP. After that the complainant with cheque No. 030494 dated 22.6.2008, cheque No.030495 dated 8.10.2008 and cheque No. 030496 dated 19.12.2008 are made operative in the society. Cheque No. 030492 complainant has not issued to anybody.
4. That Satwinder Singh, Angrej Singh and Parminder Singh collectively with common intention with a motive to cheat the complainant, Angrej Singh and Parminder Singh fraudulently obtained the signatures on cheque No. 030492 while having cheque No. 030491 dated 29.1.2008 or cheque No. 030493 dated 9.6.2008. That when I had made all the entries in the receipt of my cheque book with dates but cheque No.030492 has no date in the receipt. Afterwards I came to know that after obtaining the signatures by fraud on cheque Angrej Singh and Parminder Singh has given the same to Satwinder Singh. Satwinder Singh had made an entry of date on cheque as April,2009 and about Rs.5 lacs has been filled and deposited the same in the society which got dishonoured but complainant has not borrowed any loan amount.
5. That the accused collectively with common intention with a motive to cheat the complainant, they prepared a fake cheque to cheat, action should be taken against them."
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the FIR in question has been lodged as a counter blast to the notice issued by the petitioner to the complainant qua dishonour of cheque under Section 138-A of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short the Act). In support of his arguments, learned counsel has placed reliance on Anjani Kumar V/s. State of Bihar and another 2008 (2) GLH 423 : (AIR 2008 SC 1992 : 2008 Cri LJ 2558) and Ajit Sharma and others V/s. Meenu Singh Dhindsa 2006 (2) RCR (Criminal) 652.
3. Learned counsel for the respondents, on other hand, have submitted that the cheque in question had been stolen by the petitioner and he had presented the same for encashment. The cheque book in question belonged to the Co-operative Society.
4. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that the instant petition deserves to be dismissed.
5. In State of Haryana V/s. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp(l) Supreme Court Cases 335 : (AIR 1992 SC 604 : 1992 Cri LJ 527), the Apex: Court has held as under :
"The following categories of cases can be, stated by way of illustration wherein the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482, Cr.P.C. can be exercised by the High Court 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 precise, clearly defined and sufficiently chennelised 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 com
