RAJAT MITTAL Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) . This is a petition under Section 4R2 of the Code of Criminal. Procedure for quashing of FIR No.294/2000 under Section 420, INDIAN PENAL CODE, P.S. Greater Kailash-I, New Delhi.

(2.) . On 14/10/2000 Mr. Rajiv Modi lodged a report with the Deputy Commissioner of Police, South Delhi, alleging that he knew the petitioner from before on the basis of the representations made by the petitioner that he had procured big orders for supply of fabrics from Dubai, he had supplied goods worth Rs.36,34,268.00 against bills, to the petitioner's firm. For the goods supplied, the petitioner issued two cheques, in the sum of Rs.18.0 lacs and Rs.10.0 lacs. He agreed to pay the balance amount within a month and pledged the original title deeds of his res.ident.ial property as security, The said cheques were dishonoured for the reason account closed'. It was further alleged that, right from the beginning, petitioner's intention was dishonest and he did not intend to make the payment. Tt is, 'thus, alleged that the petitioner cheated the complainant. On the basis of above allegations, FIR was registered on 16/11/2000, which is sought to be quashed,

(3.) . Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that petitioner had earlier lodged report against the complainant for threats given to him on phone. He also filed a writ petition (Crl.w.660/2000 ), which was disposed of on 30/7/2000 by the Division Bench of this Court, with the directions to the Deputy Commissioner of Police, to enquire into the complaint. He argued that on the basis of the two cheques of Rs.18.0 lacs and Rs.10.0 lacs, which were dishonoured, the (respondent No.2), complainant has already filed complaint under Section 1.38 of the Negotiable Instruments Act on 10/10/2000, which is pending for adjudication and simultaneously on 16/10/2000, he lodged above report with the police, on the basis of which the above-noted FIR under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code,was registered. It is, thus, argued that the above FIR is an abuse of the process of the law, as the Court dealing with the .complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, wouId be competent to examine whether any offence of cheating is made out or not? Thus, it is argued that the above FTR is liable to be quashed. Reliance is placed on the decision of the Supreme Court in Sagar Suri & Ors. Vs. State (2000 (2) SCC 636