Each act of cheating constitutes a separate offence, and non-cooperation in the investigation can impact the Court's decision on quashment of criminal proceedings.

JUDGMENT :

This petition under section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code has been filed for quashment of F.I.R. in Crime No. 158/2016 registered by Police Station Ganj Basoda City, Distt. Vidisha for offence under sections 406, 420 and 409/34 of I.P.C., seeking the following relief :

It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow this petition and quash the FIR Crime No. 158/2016 registered by the Police Station, Ganj-Basoda City, District : Vidisha along with all consequential criminal proceedings pending against the petitioner in the concerned Court, in the interest of justice.

2. This is the third round of petition under section 482, Criminal Procedure Code, which has been filed by the Petitioner for quashment of the F.I.R.

3. Initially, the petitioner had filed a petition under section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code which was registered as M.Cr.C. No. 11136/2017. The Said petition was dismissed by a Division Bench of this Court by order dated 5-2-2018 which reads as under :

“Shri N. P. Dwivedi, learned Senior counsel with Shri S. K. Tiwari, counsel for the petitioner.

Shri R. K. Awasthi, learned Public Prosecutor for respondent No. 1/State.

Shri Rajiv Sharma, learned counsel for respondent No. 2.

Inherent powers of this Court under section 482, Criminal Procedure Code are invoked to assail the prosecution initiated against the petitioner vide F.I.R. dated 18-2-2016 bearing Crime No. 158/2016 alleging offences punishable under section 406, 420/34 I.P.C. and subsequently added section 409 I.P.C.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned F.I.R. was lodged against three co-accused namely Manohar Lal Parik, Chiranji Lal Parik and Devendra Garg and the petitioner was neither named in the said F.I.R. nor any allegation was made therein against him. It is submitted that during the course of investigation statement of one of the co-accused Manohar Lal Parik under section 27 of Evidence Act was recorded wherein it was inter alia alleged that the godown of the petitioner had been used for storing the stock of gram alleged to be the subject matter of the offence in question. It is thus submitted that there is no evidence available against the petitioner. Learned counsel for the State and the victim contend that investigation against the said three co-accused after being concluded led to filing of charge-sheets, whereas, further investigation under section 173(8) of Criminal Procedure Code is kept pending against the petitioner.

This Court is of the considered view that possibility of further incriminating evidence against the petitioner coming to light cannot be ruled out due to inconclusive investigation.

Accordingly, this Court declines interference.

At this stage learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner is a reputed Citizen and his arrest may entail adverse consequence to his reputation. Once this Court finds the challenge to the F.I.R. as premature it would be inappriate to make any comment about the apprehension urged by petitioner’s counsel.

Consequently, this petition under section 482, Criminal Procedure Code stands dismissed.”

4. Thereafter, the petitioner again filed another petition under section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code for quashment of the F.I.R. which was registered as M.Cr.C. No. 35886 of 2018. The said petition was dismissed by order dated 19-11-2018 which reads as under :

Shri Jitendra Kumar Sharma, counsel for the applicant.

Shri Vivek Jain, Public Prosecutor for the respondent No. 1/State.

This petition under section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code has been filed for quashing the FIR in Crime No. 158/2016 registered at Police Station Ganj Basoda, District Vidisha for offence under sections 406, 420, 409, 34 of Indian Penal Code.

Before considering the submissions made by the counsel for the petitioner, it would be appropriate to mention that initially the petitioner had filed a similar petition, which was registered as MCRC No. 11136/20