- (1.) Leave granted.
(2.) The decision of the Division Bench of Delhi High Court, quashing the F. I. R. No. 285 of 1998 at P. S. Rajouri Garden for offence under Sections 420/406/468, I. P. C. is under challenge in this appeal by the informant. The informant-appellant filed the FIR alleging therein that the respondents by an act of conspiracy committed criminal breach of trust by presenting blank cheques, signed by the appellant for withdrawing money for a purpose for which it had not been given and by so doing, they have caused a loss of Rs. 8,982/- inasmuch as this was the commission which the appellant had to bear. The gravaman of the appellant's case in the FIR is that certain cheques had been given to the respondents more particularly the Commercial Manager with the specific understanding that these cheques can be presented against delivery of future vehicles and not for any past liability or dues, but the respondents presented the same which of course could not be encashed in view of the directions given by the appellant-drawer. However the appellant had to sustain the loss of Rs. 8982/- as commission charges. The respondents filed application in Delhi High Court for quashing of FIR inter alia on the ground that the averments in the FIR do not make out the offence of either Sec. 406 or Sec. 420 as the necessary ingredients under Sections 405 and 415 of the IPC have not been indicated. The respondents also took the ground that the criminal proceeding pursuant to the F. I. R. has been initiated with an ulterior motive and thereby there has been a gross abuse of process of law and as such the FIR should be quashed. The High Court on consideration of the case of the parties and on the materials was of the opinion that the informant himself has already resorted to civil remedy for adjudication by an arbitrator and thereafter having lodged the complaint must be held to have the abuse of the process of law and, therefore, the F. I. R. should be quashed in the interest of justice.
(3.) Mr. P. C. Jain, learned Senior Counsel, appearing for the appellant contended before us that the assertions made in the FIR do constitute a cognizable offence and as such the same could not have been quashed in the light of the judgment of this Court in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 : (1992 AIR SCW 237 : AIR 1992 SC 604 : 1992 Cri LJ 527) and judgment of this Court in Rajesh Bajaj v. State, NCT of Delhi, (1999) 2 JT (SC) 112 : (1999 AIR SCW 881 : AIR 1999 SC 1216 : 1999 Cri LJ 1833).;