ASHOK PURI Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Prayer in this petition is for quashing of FIR No.265 dated 23.7.2003 (Annexure P-3) under Section 420 IPC registered at Police Station Division No.6 Ludhiana on the ground that complainant-respondent No.2 has initiated proceedings under Section 420 IPC and 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short the 'N.I.Act') simultaneously against the petitioner through a criminal complaint which is verbatim the same as the FIR and in the said criminal complaint, petitioner has been summoned only for offence under Section 138 of the N.I.Act vide order dated 12.11.2003 ( Annexure P-2) by the Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Ludhiana.

(2.) It is the contention of the counsel for the petitioner that the allegations in the FIR and in the criminal complaint preferred by the complainant (Annexures P-1 and P-3) are verbatim the same and the Court, on the basis of the preliminary evidence led by the complainant in criminal complaint, taking into consideration the evidence so produced, has summoned the petitioner only for offence under Section 138 of the N.I.Act vide order dated 12.11.2003 (Annexure P-2). He contends that once the criminal proceedings on the same allegations have been initiated against the petitioner and the Court has taken cognizance thereof, continuance of proceedings on an FIR would be an abuse of process of Court. In support of this contention, counsel has placed reliance upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of G.Sagar Suri and another vs. State of U.P.and others, 2000 2 SCC 636wherein it has been held that where criminal complaint under Section 138 of the N.I. Act is also pending, no occasion for prosecution of that person under Sections 406 and 420 IPC is made out and the prosecution is liable to be quashed. On this basis, he prays for the present petition to be allowed.

(3.) On the other hand, counsel for the respondent-complainant submits that the FIR has been got registered by the complainant for an offence under Section 420 IPC in which, on investigation, substance has been found and challan has been presented against the petitioner. He, therefore, contends that it cannot be said that criminal proceedings under Section 420 IPC initiated by the complainant on the basis of an FIR is not sustainable. He, however, could not dispute the fact that the contents of the FIR (Annexure P-3) and that of the criminal complaint filed by the complainant (Annexure P-1) are verbatim the same as alleged by the petitioner. On this basis, he prays for dismissal of the petition.