ASHOK SINGH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Misc. Petition under Section 482 has been filed for quashing of FIR No. 140/2013 registered at Police Station, Arawali Vihar, Alwar dated 2.4.2013 for offence under Sections 420, 120- B, 467, 468 and 471 IPC.

(2.) The short facts of the case as narrated in the petition are that complainant non petitioner No.2 has lodged an FIR for the offence under Section 420, 120-B, 467, 468 and 471 IPC by way of complaint which was sent for investigation under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. The contention of the present petitioner is that the FIR is manifestly attended with mala fides and only to create pressure to the present petitioner who has filed complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (in short NI Act) against non petitioner No.2. The petitioner has advanced a loan of Rs.2,80,000/- and cheque was issued by non petitioner No.2 in his favour which was submitted in the Bank on 27.2.2013 but it was dishonoured. Again on the request of respondent No.2, it was presented on 3.3.2013 and it was dishonoured with an endorsement of insufficient fund, third time also it was presented but again it was dishonoured and notice has been served on respondent on 11.3.2013 which was duly received by respondent No.2. Thereafter, present petitioner lodged a complaint under Section 138 NI Act, therefore, just to create a defence, this false FIR has been lodged. As per FIR chqeus were lost in the month of September, 2012 however respondent No.2 has never lodged any report to the police nor any information has been supplied to the Bank for "stop payment", this itself is sufficient to prove that the present FIR has been registered only with a view to create defence and to create pressure on the present petitioner. In view of this matter, the present FIR be quashed. Per contra, the contention of the counsel for respondent No.2 is that ingredients of offence has been set out in the First Information Report and no case is made out for quashing the FIR.

(3.) Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner learned Public Prosecutor and counsel for the respondent No.2 and perused the impugned FIR as well as the documents produced by the present petitioner.