AUGUSTINE GEMRGE MASIH, J. - (1.) PRAYER in this petition is for quashing of FIR No.113 dated 12.08.2009 under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC registered at Police Station Sadar Nabha, District Patiala (Annexure P-l) and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom.
(2.) IT is the contention of the counsel for the petitioner that the registration of the present FIR is an abuse of process of law especially when it is a case where cheque, which was handed over to the complainant, has been returned by the bank by endorsing that the signatures do not tally. He contends that the remedy of initiating proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as 'the 1881 Act') is available to the complainant and the present FIR has been got registered against the petitioner after the limitation to avail the said remedy stood expired. In support of this contention, counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in the case of Charanjit Singh Chawla Vs. State of Punjab, 2009(2) R.C.R. (Criminal), 690 and reliance has also been placed on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Veer Prakash Sharma Vs. Anil Kumar Agarwal and another, 2007(3) R.C.R. (Criminal), 960 to contend that where there is an alternate remedy available, inception of criminal proceedings for the same cause of action is not maintainable. On the other hand, counsel for the respondent contends that a bars perusal of the FIR clearly reveals that from the very inception the intention of the petitioner was to cheat the complainant. As is apparent from the FIR itself that the petitioner had issued a fictitious cheque to the complainant and had put signatures of some other person, which clearly indicates that the intention was to cheat the complainant and not otherwise. The ingredients of the offence having been fully incorporated in the FIR and the offence clearly apparent therefrom on the bare reading thereof, the prayer made by the counsel for the petitioner cannot be accepted for quashing of the FIR. He further contends that as per the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Raj Kumar Khurana Vs. State of (NCT of Delhi) and another, 2009(3) R.C.R. (Criminal), 15, has on consideration of Section 138 has explained and laid down as to why and under what circumstances proceedings under Section 138 of the 1881 Act can be initiated and if those ingredients are not found to be there, the continuance of the proceedings under Section 138 of the 1881 Act is not sustainable. It is the further contention of the counsel for the respondent that the investigating agency during its investigation had sent the cheque to the Forensic Science Laboratory, Chandigarh for comparing the signatures on the cheque with the standard (admitted) signatures of the petitioner and in the report it has been found that the said signatures are not of the petitioner or has been intended to disguise to be of a different author which clearly suggests that the forgery has been committed by the petitioner and the offence under Section 420 IPC is also made out as the intention is apparent.
(3.) ACCORDINGLY , it is prayed that the present petition be dismissed. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the records of the case.;