Mr. Ranjit Singh, J.: - The petitioner prays for quashing of FIR No.86, dated 25.3.2011, registered under Sections 406, 420 IPC at Police Station Zirakpur, District S.A.S. Nagar, Mohali (Annexure P-1), against him.

2. The ground advanced to seek quashing of this FIR is that for the same very allegations, the petitioner has been convicted for an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short, “the Act”) and sentenced of RI for one year has been imposed by Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Ludhiana, on 17.1.2011. It is further pointed out that suit for recovery is pending before the Court of Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Dera Bassi, for the same allegations.

3. The impugned FIR has been registered by respondent No.2 against the petitioner. It is alleged that respondent No.2 has misled the police authorities while lodging this FIR. It is based on an agreement to sell dated 25.3.2006. The petitioner pleads that this agreement was fabricated by respondent No.2. As per the petitioner, he neither executed any agreement nor issued any cheque. On the same very allegations, respondent No.2 had filed a complaint No.508, dated 15.11.2007 under Section 138 of the Act before the Court of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Ludhiana. The petitioner stands convicted for an offence under Section 138 of the Act, for which he has been imposed rigorous imprisonment for one year coupled with fine of Rs.2000/-. Copy of the judgement is placed on record as Annexure P-2. The petitioner has preferred an appeal against this order and has been released on bail.

4. In addition, respondent No.2 has also filed a suit for recovery of the amount mentioned in the cheque bearing No.755954 dated 1.9.2007 before the Court of Additional Civil Judge (Sr.Division), Dera Bassi. This suit statedly is still pending. Counsel accordingly would plead that the dispute, if any, is of a civil nature, which has been converted into a criminal liability. The matter is already subjudice before the appellate Court. Counsel accordingly would plead that continuation of criminal proceedings against him for offences under Sections 406 and 420 IPC would be abuse of the process of the Court. The petitioner would also plead that he has just been harassed as respondent No.2 is an influential person. In support of his plea that filing of FIR and continuation of proceedings would be a double jeopardy, counsel has placed reliance on Kola Veera Raghav Rao Vs. Gorantla Venkateswara Rao and another, AIR 2011 Supreme Court 641.

5. Replies on behalf of the State as well as respondent No.2 have been filed. Respondent No.2 would allege that the petitioner has committed fraud with him and has misappropriated an amount advanced to him and, thus, he is left with no alternative remedy, except to get the FIR registered against him. Giving details of the facts, it is stated that the petitioner had entered into an agreement to sell dated 25.3.2006 with respondent No.2 for sale of Kothi with all rights. The sale consideration agreed was Rs.15 lacs. The petitioner allegedly received a sum of Rs.9.5 lacs from respondent No.2 and agreed to execute the sale deed on or before 4.6.2007. Later on, the market price of the house increased. The petitioner approached respondent No.2 and told that he was unable to sell his house. After further negotiation, they agreed to make a payment of Rs.32 lacs to respondent No.2 to settle the claim. The petitioner issue a cheque on 1.9.2007 for a sum of Rs.32 lacs drawn on Overseas Bank, Zirakpur. The petitioner had assured respondent No.2 that the said cheque shall be honoured, when presented. However, the same was dishonoured with the remarks ‘account closed’. It is accordingly alleged that the petitioner has not only committed an offence under Section 138 of the Act but has committed offences under Sections 406 and 420 IPC. Similar stand is taken by respondent No.1 in the reply filed.

6. I have considered the submissions made.

7. T