The judgment establishes the principle that when a special law addresses a specific matter, the general law should not prevail over it.

ORDER

1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioners herein for quash of Crime No. 180/2013, which was registered at Police Station-Habibganj, Bhopal against them for an offence under section 420 of IPC simplicitor.

2. The contents of the FIR read thus:-

I Smt. Sunita Singh am the daughter of late Vishwanath Singh, Villa Mohidpur, Gorakhpur, Uttar Pradesh. I live at the above-mentioned address. I have equal share in the property of my late father and in this respect my brother had given me some cheques after taking my signature on some paper. I deposited cheque no. 100532 for 10 lakh, cheque no. 100534 for 10 lakh and cheque no. 100535 for 10 lakh, all the three cheques drawn on Standard Chartered Bank, New Delhi in the Central Bank of India, Sahapura Branch, Bhopal. Cheque no. 100527 for 10 lakh and cheque no. 100528 for 10 lakh deposited in the Vidisha-Bhopal Rural Bank, Sahapura Branch and cheque no. 100530 for 10 lakh deposited in State Bank of India, Shivaji Nagar, Bhopal but all the seven cheques have been dishonoured due to closure of account. Thus, my brother Prakash Singh has cheating me total of 64 lakhs. Please take appropriate action by registering criminal case against him. (English translation as annexed to the petition).

3. Thereafter, learned counsel for the State has read out from the 161 statement of the complainant-Sunita Singh. In addition to what she is stated in the FIR, she says that she had suffered the loss of her Cheque book against which she has given stop payment instructions to her Bank and thereafter she says, that she suspects that perhaps, it is her brother i.e., the petitioner no.1 and her sister-in-law, the petitioner no.2 who may have taken away these cheque books with the intent of defrauding her. It is essential to state here that in her 161 statement, the complainant/respondent no.2 only says that she suffered a loss of the cheque books for which she has given a stop payment instruction to her Bank and thereafter, she says, that she suspects the petitioners of having taken the cheque-book. Where and when those cheque books were taken, no description or details is given. Thus, that part of the police statement is speculative and omnibus. She also does not say that any of the cheques from the said cheque book have been used by anyone on account of which she suffered a loss. The second set of allegations in the 161 statement is conspicuous by its absence in the FIR and appears to have been introduced in the police statement as an afterthought so as to implicate the petitioners for theft.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioner no.1 and the petitioner no.2 are related to each other. Father of the petitioner no.1 and the respondent no.2 had two wives. From the first wife, a son named Jai Prakash Singh (since deceased) was born. The second wife is Saraswati Singh, from whom the petitioner no. 1 and the respondent no.2 were born. There was a partition on 27.11.2006 by which 50% of the share in the father's property went to Jai Prakash Singh and 25% went to the petitioner no. 1 Shree Prakash Singh and the remaining 25% went to second wife, the mother of the petitioner no.1 and the respondent no. 2, Saraswati Singh. Subsequently on 13.05.2009, there was an MOU between Shree Parkash Singh (the petitioner no.1) and Sunita Singh (the respondent no.2). As per which Shree Prakash Singh got 60% share in the property of Saraswati Singh and 40% of the share went to Sunita Singh.

5. The only short point to be decided in this particular case is whether the allegations in the FIR itself discloses that the cheques, which were deposited for encashment by the respondent no.2 and which bounced on account of closure of the account could constitute an offence u/s. 420 IPC? Learned counsel appearing for the respondent no.2 has stated that a case under section 138 of N.I. Act has also been filed which is pending before the learned trial Court. Thus, the only point to be considere