Sabina, J. - (1.) PETITIONER has filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 seeking quashing of the Criminal Complaint No. 200 of 2013 dated 29.11.2013 titled "Kartar Singh Vs. Narender" (Annexure P -1).
(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the complaint in question was liable to be quashed as the petitioner had got registered FIR against the respondent on the allegation that the cheque in question had been stolen. In the case of State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal., : 1992 Supp(1) Supreme Court Cases 335, the Apex Court has held as under: - "The following categories of cases can be stated by way of illustration wherein the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482, Cr.P.C. Can be exercised by the High Court either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelized and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised: - (1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complainant/respondent No. 2, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused. (2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code. (3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do no disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused. (4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non -cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a Police Officer without an order of Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code. (5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. (6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of aggrieved party. (7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceedings is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge. We also give a note of caution to the effect that the power of quashing a criminal proceeding should be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare cases; that the court will not be justified in embarking upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint and that the extraordinary or inherent powers do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the court to act according to its whim or caprice."
(3.) CASE of the complainant, in brief, is that the petitioner had taken loan from him for business purposes and in order to repay the loan amount, petitioner had issued a cheque in the sum of Rs. 40,00,000/ - on 30.09.2013. However, when the cheque was presented for encashment, the same was dishonoured due to insufficient funds. Hence, the complaint under Section 138/142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (in short 'Act') and Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 was filed. In support of his case, complainant led his preliminary evidence and on the basis of the evidence led by the complainant, petitioner was ordered to be summoned to face the trial qua commission of offence punishable under Section 138 of the Act vide order dated 03.04.2014. Whether the cheque in question was stolen by the respondent or not can be gone into during trial. At this stage, the defence put -forth by the petitioner cannot be considered. The defence put -forth by the petitioner that the cheque in question had been stolen by the respondent can be gone into by the trial Court after petitioner leads evidence in this regard. However, it would not be just and expedient to quash the criminal proceedings at the very threshold.;