BALWINDER VERMA @ BOBBY Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner, by way of instant petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure ('Cr.P.C.' for short), seeks quashing of FIR No.112 dated 15.10.2012 registered under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code ('IPC' for short) at Police Station Anandpur Sahib, District Rupnagar and consequential proceedings arising therefrom. Notice of motion was issued and pursuant thereto, reply on behalf of respondent-State has been filed. A separate reply was filed on behalf of the complainant.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that once the petitioner already stood acquitted of the charges framed against him under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 ('NI Act' for short) vide judgment dated 8.2.2012, passed by the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Anandpur Sahib, registration of the impugned FIR and continuation of proceedings arising therefrom, for the offence under Section 420 IPC is nothing but a misuse of process of law, because the impugned FIR is based on the same set of allegations, which were levelled against the petitioner in the complaint under Section 138 of the NI Act. He also submits that continuation of the criminal proceedings arising out of the impugned FIR would amount to double jeopardy against the petitioner. In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance on a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kola Veera Raghav Rao v. Gorantla Venkateswara Rao and another, 2011 2 SCC 703 and a judgment of this Court in Prince Kumar v. State of Punjab and another, 2013 2 RCR(Cri) 874 . He prays for quashing the impugned FIR and consequential proceedings arising therefrom, by allowing the present petition.

(3.) On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submits that the present petition is wholly misconceived. She further submits that acquittal of the petitioner in a complaint case under Section 138 of the NI Act would not absolve him from the offence committed by him under Section 420 IPC. It is also a matter of fact and record as well, that petitioner, while proceeding on his malafide intention, signed a cheque from the cheque book of his mother, in favour of the complainant, knowing fully well that it would amount to an offence punishable under Section 420 IPC. She also refers to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sangeetaben Mahendrabhai Patel v. State of Gujarat and another, 2012 7 SCC 621 . She prays for dismissal of the present complaint. Similarly, learned counsel for the complainant vehemently contended that petitioner is a habitual offender. Besides the impugned FIR, he has been found involved, at least in three more FIRs registered under Section 420 IPC at Districts Rupnagar, SAS Nagar (Mohali) and Kapurthala. The first FIR bearing No.99 dated 29.8.2013 was registered at Police Station, Anandpur Sahib on a complaint of one Kuldeep Sharma, wherein allegation of cheating of an amount of Rs.30 lacs was levelled against the petitioner. Second FIR bearing No.267 dated 16.10.2013 was registered at Police Station SAS Nagar (Mohali) on the complaint of one Jagbir Singh who has also been defrauded by the petitioner and third FIR bearing No. 146 dated 24.5.2014 was registered at Police Station, Kapurthala City, wherein petitioner defrauded one Makhan Singh on the pretext of sending him abroad. He further submits that apart from the abovesaid FIRs, there are some other criminal cases pending against the petitioner. While referring to para 16 of the judgment of acquittal dated 8.2.2012, whereby petitioner was acquitted of the charges framed against him under Section 138 of the NI Act, learned counsel for the complainant submits that it was observed by the learned court that the complainant has a remedy to take action against the accused under the provisions of any other law as applicable. He places reliance on two judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sangeetaben Mahendrabhai Patel v. State of Gujarat and another, 2012 7 SCC 621 and Mohit alias Sonu and another v. State of U.P. and another, 2013 7 SCC 789 . He also prays for dismissal of the instant petition.