Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 1799 (PNJ)

Satwinder Singh v. State Of Punjab

2010-05-26

SABINA

body2010
Judgment 1. Petitioners have filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short Cr.P.C.) seeking quashing of FIR No. 133 dated 29.8.2009 under Sections 379, 420 IPC registered at Police Station Sadar District Faridkot and all the subsequent proceeding arising thereto. The contents of the FIR (Annexure P1) reads as under:- "1.The complainant is resident of village Tehna and is agriculturist by profession and there is a co-operative society in the village Tehna whose Secretary is Angrej Singh and Parminder Singh alias Mochni is the Watchman. Both Angrej Singh and Parminder Singh are close relatives of Satwinder Singh. 2. That the complainant is the member in the village Co-operative Society, Society has issued a cheque book bearing cheque No. 030481 to 030500 which was in the possession of Secretary because this cheque was not in any other use other than the society. 3. That on 29.1.2008, the complainant through cheque No. 304091 has withdrawn cash payment, cheque No. 030493 dated 9.6.2008 withdrawn cash payment, cheque No. 030493 dated 9.6.2008 withdrawn Rs.l870/-for 4 bags of DAP. After that the complainant with cheque No. 030494 dated 22.6.2008, cheque No.030495 dated 8.10.2008 and cheque No. 030496 dated 19.12.2008 are made operative in the society. Cheque No. 030492 complainant has not issued to anybody. 4. That Satwinder Singh, Angrej Singh and Parminder Singh collectively with common intention with a motive to cheat the complainant, Angrej Singh and Parminder Singh fraudulently obtained the signatures on cheque No. 030492 while having cheque No. 030491 dated 29.1.2008 or cheque No. 030493 dated 9.6.2008. That when I had made all the entries in the receipt of my cheque book with dates but cheque No.030492 has no date in the receipt. Afterwards I came to know that after obtaining the signatures by fraud on cheque Angrej Singh and Parminder Singh has given the same to Satwinder Singh. Satwinder Singh had made an entry of date on cheque as April,2009 and about Rs.5 lacs has been filled and deposited the same in the society which got dishonoured but complainant has not borrowed any loan amount. 5. That the accused collectively with common intention with a motive to cheat the complainant, they prepared a fake cheque to cheat, action should be taken against them." 2. 5. That the accused collectively with common intention with a motive to cheat the complainant, they prepared a fake cheque to cheat, action should be taken against them." 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the FIR in question has been lodged as a counter blast to the notice issued by the petitioner to the complainant qua dishonour of cheque under Section 138-A of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short the Act). In support of his arguments, learned counsel has placed reliance on Anjani Kumar V/s. State of Bihar and another 2008 (2) GLH 423 : (AIR 2008 SC 1992 : 2008 Cri LJ 2558) and Ajit Sharma and others V/s. Meenu Singh Dhindsa 2006 (2) RCR (Criminal) 652. 3. Learned counsel for the respondents, on other hand, have submitted that the cheque in question had been stolen by the petitioner and he had presented the same for encashment. The cheque book in question belonged to the Co-operative Society. 4. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that the instant petition deserves to be dismissed. 5. In State of Haryana V/s. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp(l) Supreme Court Cases 335 : (AIR 1992 SC 604 : 1992 Cri LJ 527), the Apex: Court has held as under : "The following categories of cases can be, stated by way of illustration wherein the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482, Cr.P.C. can be exercised by the High Court either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently chennelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised : (1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complainant, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused. (2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code. (3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused. (4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a Police Officer without an order of Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code. (5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. (6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of aggrieved party. (7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceedings is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge. We also give a note of caution to the effect that the power of quashing a criminal proceeding should be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare cases; that the court will not be justified in embarking upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint and that the extraordinary or inherent powers do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the court to act according to its whim or caprice." 6. In the present case, the allegations against the petitioner are that he in connivance with his co-accused has prepared a fake cheque with an intention to cheat the complainant. In the present case, the allegations against the petitioner are that he in connivance with his co-accused has prepared a fake cheque with an intention to cheat the complainant. The complainant is the member of the village Co-operative Society and he was issued a cheque book which was in possession of the Secretary Angrej Singh-co-accused. The cheque book was to be used only for the purposes of the Society, whereas, the cheque in question had not been issued by the complainant to anybody. When the cheque was presented for encashment by the petitioner, the same was dishonoured. Thereafter, the FIR in question was lodged. A notice under Section 138 of the Act had been issued by the petitioner after lodging of the FIR. The complainant has taken recourse to law. No ground for interference by this Court is made out. Dismissed. Petition dismissed.