RITA (SMT.) Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 17.4.2009 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Sri Ganganagar, in revision, whereby he has upheld the order dated 3.8.2007 passed by the ACJM, taking cognizance against the petitioner for the offences under Sec. 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120B IPC.

(2.) Succinctly stated, the facts of the case are that the complainant-respondent No. 2 filed an FIR against the petitioner with the allegation that the petitioner and her husband took a loan of Rs.60,000.00 from him and towards the repayment of the loan, a cheque dated 1.4.2006 drawn on the Punjab National Bank, Sri Ganganagar for an amount of Rs.60,000.00 filled by the petitioner's husband and claimed to have been signed by the petitioner was handed over the complainant. When the complainant presented the cheque to his bank, the same was dishonoured, as the account had been closed. Thereupon, the complainant sent a notice under Sec. 138 of the Neotiable Instruments Act to the petitioner but the amount of the cheque was not made good, despite receiving the notice. The complainant, in turn, filed a complaint under Sec. 138 of the Neotiable Instruments Act and during the pendency of the proceedings of the complaint, it came to light that the cheque, for bouncing whereof the complaint was filed, was not drawn on petitioner's account. The complainant on coming to know of this information, filed yet another complaint with the allegation that the petitioner as well as her husband connived and in order to cheat the complainant, a forged cheque was handed over to him. The Trial Court proceeded to take cognizance for the aforesaid offences and summoned the petitioner by the order dated 3.8.2007. The order taking cognizance was challenged in revision and the revisional Court has also affirmed the same. Hence, the instant petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking to have the proceedings of the complaint and the order taking cognizance, quashed.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned P.P. as also the learned counsel for the complainant, have submitted to this Court that subsequent to the proceedings of the complaint, the parties have entered into compromise and the amount of Rs.60,000.00 has been paid to the complainant and, thereafter, the complainant has withdrawn the complaint filed by him under Sec. 138 of the Neotiable Instruments Act. The affidavit of the complainant sworn on 26.2.2011 has been placed on record by the learned counsel for the complainant. It is submitted that the proceedings of the instant complaint deserve to be quashed on the basis of the compromise arrived at between the parties.