The court cannot quash proceedings based on allegations in the FIR at the initial stage. The complaint and the FIR should be tried separately but simultaneously by the same Judicial Officer.

K. S. Kumaran, J.

1. Respondent Sushma Kedia lodged a complaint against petitioner Meenakshi Gupta and her husband Naresh Kumar Gupta under Sec.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and Sections 420/120b, I. P. C. The material allegations found therein are as follows:

2. Naresh Kumar Gupta along with Meenakshi Gupta used to sell and purchase shares through Tushar Associate of which Meenakshi Gupta was the proprietor. Both of them induced the complainant to sell her shares promising to give the sale proceeds within a period of one month. Shares of the value of Rs.4,09,428/- were accordingly given by the complainant to the accused out of which the accused had paid Rs.1,61,700.00 leaving a balance of Rs.2,47,728/- On demand by the complainant, the accused had given three cheques (1) for Rs.50,000.00 dated 5-4-1997. (2) for Rs.75,000.00 dated 20-4-1997 and (3) Rs.1,00,000.00 dated 5-5-1997 on Canara Bank, Panipat. The cheques were given by both the accused, but signed by the 2nd accused (Meenakshi Gupta ). The complainant presented those three cheques for encashment on 9-7-1997 in Punjab National Bank, G. T. Road, Panipat but these cheques were dishonoured by the bank on the ground funds insufficient on 10-7-1997. The complainant came to know that both the, accused had already received the sale amount for the shares and have thus cheated the complainant. The complainant gave a registered notice on 17-7-1997 to both the accused which they received on 21-7-1997, but the accused have not paid the amount.

3. The learned C. J. M. by his order dated 5-9-1997 (annexure P-4) held that there are sufficient grounds for proceedings against the 2nd accused (petitioner herein) for an offence under Sec.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and ordered her to be summoned for the hearing on 29- 10-1997, but dismissed the complaint as against the 1st accused Naresh Kumar Gupta.

4. Therefore, petitioner Meenakshi Gupta has filed this petition under Sec.482 Cr. P. C. for quashing the above said complaint annexure P-3 and all the subsequent proceedings arising there from including the summoning order annexure P-4.

5. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, respondent Sushma Kedia lodged a complaint with the police on the same allegations against her and her husband Naresh Kumar Gupta, but also stating that signatures of Meenakshi Gupta in the cheques were forged by her husband Naresh Kumar Gupta, on the basis of which F. I. R. No.629 dated 29-7-1997 was registered under Sections 420, 406, 467, 468 and 471 I. P. C. at Police Station City, Panipat, and the police on investigation found no case against petitioner Meenakshi Gupta, but filed the charge-sheet only against the husband-Naresh Kumar Gupta. The petitioner also claims that the learned C. J. M. before whom the F. I. R. case is pending, found that there is no report by the banker that the signatures on the cheques were forged and, therefore, only an offence under Sec.406 I. P. C. is prima fade made out and accordingly framed a charge under Sec.406 I. P. C. against Naresh Kumar Gupta only. Therefore, the claim of the petitioner is that respondent having stated in the F. I. R. that the signatures of the petitioner was forged by her husband Naresh Kumar Gupta, cannot maintain the present complaint under Sec.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The petitioner claims that in the complaint, the respondent has changed her stand and has also involved the petitioner, and the complaint in the circumstances of the case is an abuse of process of law.

6. The petitioner also claims that inasmuch as with reference to the same subject matter, the F. I. R. and the complaint have been lodged by the complainant, both of them should be clubbed, tried and disposed of together.

7. The respondent has filed a reply opposing the request of the petitioner for quashing the F. I. R. urging that all the prosecution witnesses have already been examined and the case is at the stage of evidence for the de