ORDER 1. Petitioner has preferred this criminal misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of F.I.R. No.278/2018 registered at Police Station Anantpura, Kota City for the offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 383, 386, 504 and 406 IPC. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case. Complainantrespondent No.2 has lodged the present FIR with ulterior motive. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the Complainant-respondent No.2 had taken Rs.4 lacs for domestic need from the petitioner and gave two cheques bearing No.184251 dated 30.09.2015 amount of Rs.1,50,000/- and bearing No.184246 dated 30.09.2015 amount of Rs.2,50,000/-. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the said cheques were dishonoured on account of ’insufficient fund’ and petitioner had given a notice to the complainant-respondent No.2. After that, petitioner had filed a complaint against the complainant-respondent No.2 under Section 138 of N. I. Act in the Competent Court in the year 2016. After that, complainantrespondent No.2 had filed the present FIR against the petitioner on 01.06.2018 regarding same cheques. So, the present FIR be quashed. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor as well as learned counsel for the complainant have opposed the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner and submitted that after investigation, Investigating Officer has proved the offence(s) under Sections 386 and 504 IPC against the petitioner. They further submitted that the petitioner can take all the averments at the time of charge. So, petition filed by the petitioner be dismissed. 5. I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the respondent as well as learned Public Prosecutor. 6. The Hon’ble Apex court has dealt with the proposition of law pertaining to quashing of FIR/complaint/all criminal proceedings initiated against an accused by High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. in catena of judgments. Particularly, in the case of Prashant Bharti v. State of NCT of Delhi, reported in AIR 2013 SC 2753 , Hon’ble the Supreme Court has held as under: 23. Based on the factors canvassed in the foregoing paragraphs, we would delineate the following steps to determine the veracity of a prayer for quashing, raised by an accused by invoking the power vested in the High Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure: (i). Based on the factors canvassed in the foregoing paragraphs, we would delineate the following steps to determine the veracity of a prayer for quashing, raised by an accused by invoking the power vested in the High Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure: (i). Step one, whether the material relied upon by the accused is sound, reasonable, and indubitable, i.e., the material is of sterling and impeccable quality? (ii). Step two, whether the material relied upon by the accused, would rule out the assertions contained in the charges levelled against the accused, i.e., the material is sufficient to reject and overrule the factual assertions contained in the complaint, i.e., the material is such, as would persuade a reasonable person to dismiss and condemn the factual basis of the accusations as false. (iii). Step three, whether the material relied upon by the accused, has not been refuted by the prosecution/complainant; and/or the material is such, that it cannot be justifiably refuted by the prosecution/complainant? (iv). Step four, whether proceeding with the trial would result in an abuse of process of the court, and would not serve the ends of justice? 7. If the answer to all the steps is in the affirmative, judicial conscience of the High Court should persuade it to quash such criminalproceedings, in exercise of power vested in it under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Such exercise of power, besides doing justice to the accused, would save precious court time, which would otherwise be wasted in holding such a trial (as well as, proceedings arising therefrom) specially when, it is clear that the same would not conclude in the conviction of the accused. In the landmark decision of State of Haryana and Ors. Vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal and Ors. [1992 Supp (1) SCC 335], the Apex court has discussed the scope of powers of High Court to quash FIR/complaint/all criminal proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. in detail and has determined such instances where FIR/complaint/all criminal proceedings can be quashed. The relevant part of the above-mentioned judgment reads as under: 105. Vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal and Ors. [1992 Supp (1) SCC 335], the Apex court has discussed the scope of powers of High Court to quash FIR/complaint/all criminal proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. in detail and has determined such instances where FIR/complaint/all criminal proceedings can be quashed. The relevant part of the above-mentioned judgment reads as under: 105. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extra-ordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers Under Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we give the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised 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 channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formula 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 complaint, 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 F.I.R. 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 F.I.R. 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 a 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. 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 a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party. 7. Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding 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. 8. In the present case, as per contention of the petitioner, present FIR was lodged against the petitioner after filing of the complaint by the petitioner under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. A bare reading of the FIR shows that the present FIR is not bona fide. Complainant-respondent No.2 has lodged the FIR to harass and humiliate the petitioner. So, allowing the proceedings in the present FIR would be abuse of processing of law. 9. In view of over all discussions and observations made herein above and guided by the principles laid down in Prashant Bharti Vs. State of NCT of Delhi (supra) and State of Haryana and Ors. Vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal and Ors. (supra), I am of this firm view that the present is a fit case which falls within the parameters laid down by Hon’ble the Supreme Court. Therefore, this court deems it appropriate to allow the criminal misc. petitions and to quash the proceedings that arose out of the FIR impugned. 10. Accordingly, the criminal misc. petition is allowed. The F.I.R. No.278/2018 registered at Police Station Anantpura, Kota City for the offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 383, 386, 504 and 406 IPC and all consequential proceedings undertaken in pursuance thereof, are hereby quashed and set aside. 11. Stay application also stands disposed of.