SUMITI REKHA Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present petition has been filed by the petitioner, Sumiti Rekha wife of Chander Mohan @ Mohan Chand resident of Ambala City for quashing of F.I.R. No. 14 dated 29.1.1993 registered against her under Sections 420/406 IPC at P.S. Baldev Nagar, District Ambala. The aforementioned F.I.R. was registered on 29.1.1993 at the instance of one Kartar Singh, who in his complaint, submitted before the S.S.P. Ambala that he had deposited Rs. two lacs as fixed deposit with Smt. Sumiti Rekha who issued a cheque for the same amount drawn on Punjab National Bank in lieu of the amount paid to her. Later on, he came to know through newspaper that she has disappeared from Ambala and cases of fraud and cheating have been registered against her. During investigation, statements of some more depositors were recorded and as submitted by counsel for the parties, investigation in the case stands concluded. Quashing of the F.I.R. has been sought on the ground that there are no allegations of dishonest misappropriation or misrepresentation at the time of execution of the documents or when as a collateral security, cheque was given.

(2.) IN answer to the grounds for quashing, the State, in its written statement, has stated that the petitioner dishonestly collected money from the public by making false representation and false promises which gave rise to the criminal case. It has further been stated that the petitioner dishonestly misappropriated the amount lying trust with her. Petitioner during the course of investigation, has not disclosed any place of business or kind of business run by her. As a matter of fact, there was no business run by her in Ambala. Learned Counsel for the petitioner, on the strength of judgment in Cr. Misc. No. 6820-M of 1993, has contended that the F.I.R. deserves to be quashed in this case too because in Cr. Misc. No. 6820-M of 1993, the F.I.R. registered against the petitioner was quashed on the ground that the allegations contained in the said F.I.R. gave rise to only civil liability. I am afraid to accept this contention. A reading of the F.I.R. prima facie discloses the commission of offence by the petitioner and at this stage, when the investigation stands concluded, the F.I.R. cannot be quashed merely on the plea that non-payment of the amount gives rise to only civil liability.