HARMOHINDER KAUR SANDHU,J - (1.) GURDEEP Singh has filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the complaint dated 22-2-1992 Annexure P-1 and the order dated 2-4-1992 passed by Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Ludhiana summoning the petitioner under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code.
(2.) RAJINDER Singh petitioner filed complaint against the petitioner for an offence under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code on the allegations that he came in contact with the petitioner during the purchase of plot No. 830 situated in Phase III S. A. S. Nagar and paid him a SL of Rs. 5000/- as commission vide cheque dated 4-12-1991. He was to construct a house on the plot immediately. The petitioner came to Ludhiana at his residence on 6-12-1991 and represented that he was dealing in shuttering material and timber/wood and offered to supply champ timber of 'A' class quality at the rate of Rs. 300/- per cubic feet within 15 days time in the presence of Captain Ujagar Singh, Surjit Singh and K Ranbir Singh. Accepting the representation made by the petitioner as true he gave him a cheque of Rs. 52,500/- for the supply of timber before 20-12-1991. The petitioner did not supply the timber as agreed and also refused to return the amount. On enquiry it was found that he was not dealing in timber and his representation was totally false. The petitioner alleged that the cheque issued by the respondent was in the name of self and the payment in fact was received by the respondent himself. Had there been any agreement to supply timber them the respondent must have issued a payee account cheque. Earlier thereto there had been some dealings between the parties and there was no question of dishonestly inducing the respondent to deliver a cheque. In fact the respondent handed over th cheque to the petitioner for getting it encashed and delivering the amount to him as he himself was not in a position to go to the bank. The petitioner obliged the respondent by going to the bank, appending his signatures on the back of the cheque, receiving the amount and paying it back to the respondent. The complaint in these circumstances was a clear abuse of the process of the court and it did not disclose the commission of any offence. In the return filed by the respondent it was contended that the facts given in the complaint were correct and self cheque was issued to make immediate payment to the petition as to respondent wanted to utilise the winter vacations commencing from 25-12-1991. Although it was a self cheque yet payment of the amount was made to the petitioner and his signatures were duly obtained on the reverse of the cheque by way of abundant caution.
(3.) I have heard the counsel for the parties.;