Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 1232 (RAJ)

Jitendra Singh v. State Of Rajasthan

2022-04-20

NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA

body2022
JUDGMENT 1. The instant criminal misc. petition has been preferred by the accused petitioner praying to quash FIR No.183/2017 registered at Police Station Christianganj, Ajmer for the offence under Sections 420, 406, 467, 468 and 471 IPC. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the present FIR lodged by the complainant is false & frivolous. Complainant has filed the present FIR by efflux of long a long time, i.e. delay of two years. Offence mentioned in the FIR is baseless and without proof of truth. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner filed many criminal cases against the complainant under Negotiable Instruments Act. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that legal notice was given to the complainant, so, complainant had to lodge the present FIR as a counter-blast. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that cognizance was also taken on 28.08.2017 against the complainant for the offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that a bare reading of the FIR, no offence against the petitioner is made out. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the complainant developed many stories but he did not provide any proof regarding payments made by him. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that if the impugned FIR is allowed to continue against the petitioner, then the same will amount to abuse of process of law. So, present FIR filed by the complainant be quashed. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the judgment of Apex Court passed in Sanjeet Kumar v. State Of Bihar; Criminal Appeal No.852/2009, decided on 27.04.2009 and judgments passed by the Principal Seat at Jodhpur in Ajeet Pal Singh Ranawat v. State Of Rajasthan; S. B. Criminal Miscellaneous(Pet.) No.3008/2018, decided on 27.02.2019 and Kiran Bhai Kapadiya v. State Of Rajasthan; S. B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No.726/2016 decided on 01.11.2017. 4. Learned counsel for the complainant as well as learned Public Prosecutor have opposed the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner and submitted that after investigation, Investigating Officer had found proved the offence under Sections 420, 406, 467, 468 and 471 IPC against the petitioner. 4. Learned counsel for the complainant as well as learned Public Prosecutor have opposed the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner and submitted that after investigation, Investigating Officer had found proved the offence under Sections 420, 406, 467, 468 and 471 IPC against the petitioner. They further submitted that the petitioner had taken Rs.5,60,000/- on various occasions from the complainant and he had taken two cheques duly signed and same cheques were used in complaint filed by the petitioner under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. So, petition filed by the petitioner be dismissed. 5. I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for the complainant-respondent. 6. It is an admitted position that a complaint was made for the offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act by the petitioner against the complainant and cognizance was also taken against him. It is also admitted position that the present FIR was lodged after a delay of two years. Complainant-Respondent in its complaint stated that the petitioner had taken Rs.5,60,000/- on various occasions but complainant had not submitted any proof with regard to the payments. Notice was given to the complainant before filing the complaint under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act but complainant had not replied to the said notice. Thus, the complainant has lodged the present FIR as a counter-blast of the proceedings pending against him under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. So, in my considered opinion, while allowing the proceedings in the present FIR, it would amount to abuse of process of law. So, looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, I deem it proper to allow the criminal miscellaneous petition filed by the petitioner. 7. Accordingly, the criminal miscellaneous petition is allowed. The FIR No.183/2017 registered at Police Station Christianganj, Ajmer for the offence under Sections 420, 406, 467, 468 and 471 IPC and criminal proceedings pursuant thereto, are quashed. 8. Stay application also stands disposed of.