1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT

JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR.

ORDER

Ashok Singh

Vs.

State of Raj. & Anr.

S. B. Cr. MISC. PETITION NO. 3516/2013.

under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of

FIR No. 140/2013 registered at Police

Station, Arawali Vihar, Alwar dated

2.4.2013 for offence under Sections 420,

120-B, 467, 468 and 471 IPC.

Date of Order :

4^th December, 2013.

HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE NISHA GUPTA

Mr Rajneesh Gupta, for petitioner.

Mr Laxman Meena, Public Prosecutor.

Mr Mahesh Gupta, for respondent No.2.

BY THE COURT

This Misc. Petition under Section 482 has

been filed for quashing of FIR No. 140/2013

registered at Police Station, Arawali Vihar, Alwar

dated 2.4.2013 for offence under Sections 420, 120-

B, 467, 468 and 471 IPC.

2.

The short facts of the case as narrated in

the petition are that complainant non petitioner No.2

has lodged an FIR for the offence under Section 420,

120-B, 467, 468 and 471 IPC by way of complaint

which was sent for investigation under Section 156(3)

2

Cr.P.C. The contention of the present petitioner is

that the FIR is manifestly attended with mala fides

and only to create pressure to the present petitioner

who has filed complaint under Section 138 of the

Negotiable Instruments Act (in short NI Act) against

non petitioner No.2. The petitioner has advanced a

loan of Rs. 2,80,000/- and cheque was issued by non

petitioner No.2 in his favour which was submitted in

the Bank on 27.2.2013 but it was dishonoured. Again

on the request of respondent No.2, it was presented

on 3.3.2013 and it was dishonoured with an

endorsement of insufficient fund, third time also it

was presented but again it was dishonoured and

notice has been served on respondent on 11.3.2013

which was duly received by respondent No.2.

Thereafter, present petitioner lodged a complaint

under Section 138 NI Act, therefore, just to create a

defence, this false FIR has been lodged. As per FIR

chqeus were lost in the month of September, 2012

however respondent No.2 has never lodged any

report to the police nor any information has been

supplied to the Bank for “stop payment”, this itself is

3

sufficient to prove that the present FIR has been

registered only with a view to create defence and to

create pressure on the present petitioner. In view of

this matter, the present FIR be quashed.

Per contra, the contention of the counsel for

respondent No.2 is that ingredients of offence has

been set out in the First Information Report and no

case is made out for quashing the FIR.

3.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner

learned Public Prosecutor and counsel for the

respondent No.2 and perused the impugned FIR as

well as the documents produced by the present

petitioner.

4.

It is not in dispute that the complaint has

been filed by the present petitioner under Section

138 NI Act against respondent No.2 and after receipt

of notice, the impugned FIR has been lodged. Bank

memos has also been placed on record that due to

insufficient funds, cheques have been dishonoured.

Admitted case of respondent No.2 in FIR is that in

September, 2012, the cheques have been given to

present petitioner which were found to be lost but at

4

that time, nothing has been done by respondent No.2

to stop payment to the Bank or no FIR for lost

cheques have been lodged and only after initiation of

proceedings under Section 138 NI Act, the impugned

FIR has been lodged.

5.

The present petitioner has relied upon

Mahindra & Mahindra F.S. Ltd.& Anr vs Rajiv

Dubey (2009) 1 SCC 706 wherein it was held:

“10. In the meanwhile, in order to

pre-empt the impending proceeding

under Section 138 of the Act, the

respondent filed a criminal complaint

CC No.210 of 2000 against the

appellants under Sections 406, 420,

294, 506, 34 IPC before SDJM

Bhubneshwar on 11-05-2000, inter-

alia, claimi