Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 1597 (RAJ)

Ritikesh Rai v. State of Rajasthan

2019-05-21

PANKAJ BHANDARI

body2019
JUDGMENT Pankaj Bhandari, J. - Petitioner has moved this misc. petition for quashing of FIR qua the petitioners bearing No.678/2016, registered at P.S. Kotwali, Baran for the offence under Sections 420, 406, 467, 468, 471, 120-B of IPC. 2. It is contended by counsel for the petitioners that the complainant earlier lodged FIR No.258/2016 wherein it was mentioned that an amount of Rs.1 crore and 50 lakhs has not been paid by the accused. It is also mentioned that cheques were given by Deepak Saxena which were dishonored. It is argued that police submitted negative final report and observed that the dispute was of civil nature and pertained to some business transactions. It is contended that after filing of the negative final report, present FIR has been lodged which is almost of similar facts except mention of a cheque of Rs.15 lakhs given by Deepak Saxena which was given during the pendency of the investigation in the earlier FIR. It is argued that second FIR on similar facts and continuation of two FIRs' is abuse of process of law. It is also contended that cheque dishonor complaints have been filed by the complainant against Deepak Saxena, hence continuation of proceedings against the petitioners would be abuse of process of law. 3. Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on D.P. Gulati, Manager Accounts M/s. Jetking Infotrain Ltd. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr., (2015) 2 RCR(Criminal) 515 , wherein after filing of complaint under N.I. Act, complainant filed a complaint under Section 420, 467, 468 of IPC. The Apex Court observed that continuation of the proceedings would tantamount to abuse of process of law and hence the complaint was quashed. Reliance has also placed on Veer Prakash Sharma Vs. Anil Kumar Agarwal & Anr., (2007) 3 RCR(Criminal) 960 wherein also in a case of dishonor of cheques, proceedings under the Indian Penal Code were quashed. 4. Counsel for the complainant has opposed the misc. petition. It is contended that petitioners are operating in a gang. They should pay a lump sum to the traders on purchase of goods and also deliver cheque for balance amount which is not honored. It is also contended that police after conducting investigation has come to the conclusion that offences are made out against the petitioners. Hence, the criminal proceedings qua the petitioners cannot be quashed. 5. They should pay a lump sum to the traders on purchase of goods and also deliver cheque for balance amount which is not honored. It is also contended that police after conducting investigation has come to the conclusion that offences are made out against the petitioners. Hence, the criminal proceedings qua the petitioners cannot be quashed. 5. I have considered the contentions and have gone through the earlier FIR No.258/2016 and the subsequent FIR No.678/2016. The contents of both the FIRs are almost akin to the earlier FIR in which the police submitted negative final report on 9.5.2016 considering the case to be of a civil nature and relating to some business transactions, the present FIR was lodged thereafter on 12.09.2016. It is apparent that complainant has already filed complaint with regard to dishonor of cheque against Deepak Saxena. Since the police had earlier submitted a negative final report, the course open to the petitioners was to file a protest petition rather than filing a fresh FIR. 6. This Court is of the considered view that once police has submitted negative final report, subsequent FIR on the same lines should not be entertained. 7. The contention of counsel for the complainant that a cheque was given during the pendency of the investigation in the earlier FIR is not disputed by the complainant as mention of this cheque is also there in the conclusion of the Investigating Officer in the earlier FIR. Continuation of proceedings qua the petitioners would tantamount to abuse of process of Court. 8. Accordingly, this misc. petition is allowed and FIR No.678/2016, registered at P.S. Kotwali, Baran for the offence under Sections 420, 406, 467, 468, 471, 120-B of IPC qua the petitioners is quashed. 9. Stay Application also stands disposed of.