By the Court.—Hon’ble Justice Deepak Misra speaking for the Bench vide judgment dated 6.1.2017 rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Ajay Singh and another and etc. v. State of Chattisgarh and another, [Criminal Appeal Nos. 32-33 of 2017 [S.L.P. (Crl.) Nos. 7694-7695 of 2016 dated 6.1.2017] has observed in the following words:

“Performance of judicial duty in the manner prescribed by law is fundamental to the concept of rule of law in a democratic State. It has been quite often said and, rightly so, that the judiciary is the protector and preserver of rule of law. Effective functioning of the said sacrosanct duty has been entrusted to the judiciary and that entrustment expects the Courts to conduct the judicial proceeding with dignity, objectivity and rationality and finally determine the same in accordance with law. Errors are bound to occur but there cannot be deliberate peccability which can never be countenanced. The plinth of justice dispensation system is founded on the faith, trust and confidence of the people and nothing can be allowed to contaminate and corrode the same.”

2. The above noted observations would have significance, relevance and applicability to the case in hand also. Rather the observations would be relevant for the process of adjudicating and judging any matter.

3. Atul Sharma, the accused, has filed this petition for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing First Information Report registered in context of Case Crime No. 0679 of 2016 dated 9.6.2016 Police Station Gomti Nagar, District Lucknow under Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act, Sections 420, 467 and 471 Indian Penal Code.

4. Respondent No. 4, Satanjay Verma son of Sri P.C. Verma is the complainant of the First Information Report. Gist of the allegations made in the impugned First Information Report are required to be noticed, before considering the issues that have been raised before this Court.

5. The allegation in the impugned First Information Report, made by respondent No. 4 Satanjay Verma, the complainant, is to the effect that he met Atul Sharma, the petitioner about two years back in Nainital. Atul Sharma projected that he is owner of a number of hotels. Confidence of the complainant was won. The complainant was told that the petitioner wanted to expand his business of hoteliering and for the purpose, needed Rs. 1.5 crores. The complainant was told that in case Rs. 1.5 crores is given on loan at the rate of 14% interest, the business would improve. The loan amount would be returned.

6. The respondent complainant has further alleged that he believed the petitioner whereupon he gave Rs. 1,18,00,000/- on annual interest of 14% after making arrangements from Hemant Dwivedi. It has been alleged that Atul Sharma, the petitioner gave four cheques in the sum of Rs. 25 lacs each and one cheque in the sum of Rs. 18 lacs, post dated. Details of cheques and bank account number of the petitioner have been given in the impugned First Information Report. It has further been alleged that the petitioner promised to pay interest in the sum of Rs. 14,52,000/- with the last instalment.

7. It has been stated in the impugned First Information Report that cheques were deposited in the bank. The cheques were not honoured/encashed for insufficient fund. It has been alleged that even earlier, the petitioner had sent Rs. 60/62 lacs through NEFT/RTGS. Atul Sharma still owes Rs. 52/14 lacs. The petitioner also owes Rs. 14,52,000/- as interest on Rs. 1,18,00,000/- at the rate of 14%. In regard to dishonour of cheques, the complainant spoke to Atul Sharma who started tactics of dilly dallying in regard to repayment on the mobile of father of the complainant (Shri P.C. Verma). The message is saved on the mobile phone of father of the complainant. The complainant has come to know from his own sources that the petitioner does not have any bank account in Nainital (Ram Nagar), in which sufficient money is available. The petitioner has been