High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCRM-M/40944/2023dismissed

Gurmeet Singh v. State Of Punjab And Another

2023-11-22Mr. Justice Pankaj Jain7 pages

-1-

209-2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision : 22.11.2023 GURMEET SINGH ....Petitioner

Versus

STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER

...Respondents

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ JAIN Present :

Mr. Sant Kashyap, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Tarun Aggarwal, Sr. DAG, Punjab.

Mr. Aditya Dassaur, Advocate for the complainant/respondent No.2.

PANKAJ JAIN, J. (ORAL) Present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of FIR No.85 dated 18.05.2023 registered for the offence punishable under Section 420 IPC at Police Station Divison No.6, Police Commissionerate Ludhiana, District Ludhiana and all proceedings subsequent thereto.

FIR was registered by one Anmol Preet Singh s/o Pushpinder Pal Singh alleging as under :

"xxx That the applicant is a peace loving and law abiding citizen and permanent resident of Ludhiana. He is running his business of sale of Auto Parts under the name and style of M/s Kind Auto Parts, Dashmesh Nagar, Near Chawla Ice Cream, Link Road,

-2-

Ludhiana as its proprietor. 2. That the accused No.1 along with his father Shri Satnam Singh/accused No.2, son Amrinder Singh alias Kabir/accused No.3 and their associates namely Amrik Singh/accused No.4 and Soni/accusedNo.5 approached the complainant on 24.3.2022 and represented that accused No. 1/Gurmeet Singh is running his business of sale of auto parts under the name and style of M/s Shari Di Hatti, as its proprietor and the aforesaid accused persons further represented that accused No.1 enjoys great reputation in the market and further that his shop is also situated in Preet Nagar, Link Road, Ludhiana and that accused No.1 wants to purchase auto parts against payment of accused payee cheques and the accused No.1 also gave details of the goods to be purchased by him from the complainant.

Believing the representations made by the accused persons to be correct, the complainant agreed to sell the goods to the accused No.1 against payment by cheques and supplied auto parts to the accused No.1 detailed in invoice No.769 dated 24.3.2022 for Rs.10,00,000/-(Rupees ten lacs only) drawn on Bank of Maharashtra, B-XXII-2566 and 2566/1, Near Punjab Handloom Emporium, Dashmesh Nagar, Gill Road, Ludhiana, issued by accused No.1 Gurmeet Singh of M/s Shary Di Hatti out of his account No.60036092993 in favour of the aforesaid proprietorship concern of the complainant with the assurance that the said cheque shall be duly honoured on its presentation to the bank. The said cheque was issued by accused No.

1/Gurmeet Singh in discharge of his aforesaid legally enforceable liability to pay the amount of the goods purchased by him against the said invoice from the complainant. 3. That the complainant believed all the representations made by the accused to be correct and bonafide believing the same to be true, the goods were supplied to the accused vide the aforesaid invoice and the complainant through his Bankers namely HDFC Bank Ltd, Gill Road, Ludhiana presented the aforesaid cheque for collection, which was further sent in clearing by the said Bank to the Bank of the accused No.

-3-

been received back as dishonoured by the concerned bank and vide Bank Memo dated 29.3.2022 with the remarks "Kindly contact Drawee Bank". After dishonouring of the aforesaid cheques, the complainant contacted the accused and requested them to make the payment of outstanding amount towards purchase of goods by accused No. 1 but the accused flatly refused to make the payment to the complainant and threatened that in case the accused are forced to make the payment by using any coercive method or threats, the accused No. 1 shall commit suicide and shall implicate the complainant and his family in false criminal cases. 4.

That as a matter of fact, the said accused before issuing the said cheque had already given instructions to his Bank that payment of the said cheque may be stopped, meaning thereby the accused approached the complainant and purchased goods from the complainant and issued the cheque with the false assurance of honouring the same by hatching a pre-planned criminal conspiracy with each other and intention, the accused made the aforesaid false representations before purchasing the said goods from the complainant and pursuant to that conspiracy with each other they committed offence of cheating punishable under Section 420 read with Section 120B IPC.

That by the aforesaid acts and conduct of the accused they have committed offences punishable under Section 420 read with Section 120B IPC in criminal conspiracy with each other, its, therefore, prayed that an FIR under Section 420 read with Section 120B IPC may kindly be ordered to be registered against all the accused persons and may be dealt with in accordance with law. Applicant:- Anmol Preet Singh Proprietor M/s King Auto Parts, Dashmesh Nagar, Near Chawla Ice Cream, Link Road, Ludhiana (Mob No.8550800001). Sd/- (in English) Anmol Preet Singh."

Counsel for the petitioner would contend that the parties are

-4-

already before the Court after the complainant preferred a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 as the cheque issued by the petitioner got dishonoured and thus the present FIR registered for the offences punishable under Section 420 read with Section 120-B IPC cannot survive in view of bar as contained in Section 300(1) of the Code. Reliance is being placed upon law laid by the Apex Court in the case of Kola Veera Ragha Rao vs. Gorantla Venkateswara Rao and another, (2011) 2 SCC 703; G. Sagar Suri vs. State of U.P.; (2000) 2 SCC 636 and J. Vedhasingh vs. R.M. Govindan and others, 2022(4) R.C.R.(Criminal) 532.

He further submits that the issue precisely raised by him already stands referred to the Larger Bench by Two Judges Bench in J. Vedhasingh vs. R.M. Govindan and others (supra). 5.

Having heard counsel for the parties and after going through records of the case, in the considered opinion of this Court invocation of Section 300(1) Cr.P.C. in the present circumstances would be misreading the provision itself. Provision contained under Section 300 has its genesis in the principle of double jeopardy as recognized under Article 20 (2) of the Constitution of India. The primary requirement as is evident from the bare perusal of Section 300 Cr.P.C. is that a person invoking the principle of double jeopardy should have been once convicted or acquitted of such offence which is missing in the present case. 6.

Apart therefrom, it is settled proposition of law that the

-5-

complainant in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case can maintain separate proceedings qua offence punishable under Section 420 IPC irrespective of the proceedings initiated under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. The two can exist together as held by the Apex Court in the case of Sangeetaben Mahendrabhai Patel vs. State of Gujarat and another, (2012) 7 SCC 621 observing as under :

" #$ %

&% ' ' ( ' ) *

" +

% .

/ ,,+ ,

% - !

0% +, &%

! " ## $%

+ ! +

% !

1+ 23 + 4+% " 5(

% &%

! +

,0.

$ % ' )

" % 0% % '

- %

% ,

0% ! +

! %

,% %

.6 #$

7 0% ! +

+ ,

! %6 #$

0% ! +

! +

! % 6

-6-

- + + ! + ! % 0% ! +

+ ! + ,

! %6 #$

0% ! +

2 , 7

! % .

,! %

" #$ % ' ,

%6 #$

- + 0% ! +

% ! +

%! % + 3 0% ! +

, ! % ,.

3 ,

! %

% % .+ ! !

+ +

! ,

0% +,

! +

% '

9 "

% 0%

! +

. )

% !

0% +, & '

() *

## +"+

%+ ! .

! +

% '

9 " ! % % '

);

% -

% &%

! +

% '

);

+ %

,% % !

- 0% +,

', ,

0% +,

, & ,-

## ."

% '

9 "

&% .+

-7-

, ! % '

! .

+ .

" #$ %

' #$ (

. !!

!% % !

9 "

% 0% + %

% '

);

' ! % % '

9 " ,

% %

% &%

! %

% ,

- !% % '

( .

,! % 9 "

! %,! &%

! %,! %

&% '% &%,

% % 9 "

. -

% &%,

% - % 9 " .

+ ,!

- ,.

, !!+

% +

% &%

! 7.

In view of above, the petition stands dismissed. November 22, 2023 (Pankaj Jain) Dpr Judge Whether speaking/reasoned :

Yes/No Whether reportable :

Yes/No