JUDGMENT

Mrs. Manjari Nehru Kaul, J.

The instant petitions have been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., for quashing of complaint bearing No.COMP/28520/2020 under Sections 384 , 193, 406, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B, 506 IPC filed by respondent No.2 before the Illaqa/Duty Magistrate, Gurugram (Annexure P-7) as well as order dated 11.09.2020 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Gurugram (Annexure P-8) with a further prayer for quashing of FIR No.256 dated 22.09.2020 under Sections 384 , 420, 467, 468, 471, 506, 120-B IPC registered at Police Station New Colony, Gurugram (Annexure P-9). Since both the petitions arise from the same order, they are being disposed of by this common order.

2. Learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners contends that the complainant respondent No.2 had borrowed a sum of Rs. 18,46,100/- in the year 2016 from the petitioner-Narender Yadav's Company namely M/s Royal Chit Fund Private Limited, Gurugram, however, he defaulted in making timely payment of the installments. After repeated requests made by the petitioner-Narender Yadav to respondent No.2 to discharge his legal liability, respondent No.2 ultimately issued cheque No.411480 dated 16.03.2020 for an amount of Rs. 36,86,060/- drawn on Karnataka Bank, Gurugram. Similarly, in order to discharge his outstanding liability of Rs.48,12,002/- towards petitioners-Mukesh Narang and Krishan Lal, respondent No.2 issued cheque No.170332 drawn on State Bank of Patiala, Gurugram. When the aforesaid cheques were presented by the petitioners for encashment in their bank, they were dishonored with the remarks 'funds insufficient', as a result of which complaints under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 were filed by the petitioners against respondent No.2. Subsequently, respondent No.2 with an oblique motive, to avoid his aforesaid legal liabilities, filed a false and fabricated complaint (Annexure P-4) dated 24.04.2020 before Police Station New Colony, Gurugram. Respondent No.2 also moved a complaint (Annexure P-4(1)) dated 01.06.2020 before the Commissioner of Police, Gurugram.

3. Learned senior counsel has contended that respondent No.2 had been coming up with different versions at different stages. Subsequent to the moving of the complaint (Annexure P-4) before the SHO Police Station New Colony, Gurugram, a detailed investigation was carried out by the Police. As per the inquiry report of the SHO (Annexure P-5) the version of respondent No.2 was found to be false and fabricated, however still, the learned Magistrate passed the order dated 11.09.2020 (Annexure P-8) by ignoring the said report.

4. Learned senior counsel has further contended that even otherwise the allegations levelled in the complaint in question do not disclose the commission of any offence much less cognizable and thus it was apparent that the learned Magistrate had exceeded its jurisdiction by directing registration of FIR. Not only this, the Magistrate failed to record in explicit terms a prima facie satisfaction qua the commission of cognizable offence(s). Learned senior counsel has asserted that merely because learned Magistrate entertained doubt qua some facts, it could not have been a sufficient enough ground to direct registration of the FIR against the petitioners. Rather, the proper course would have been to proceed under Section 202 Cr.P.C. Learned senior counsel still further urged that the learned Magistrate erred in entertaining the complaint as it was not even maintainable. The complainant, as per him, should have approached the