GARG, J. - (1.) THIS criminal misc. petition under sec. 482 Cr. P. C. has been filed by the petitioner for quashing proceedings arising out of FIR No. 244/2000 of the Police Station Bhupalpura, Distt. Udaipur for offence under Section 420, 467 and 468 I. P. C. registered against the accused petitioner.
(2.) THIS misc. petition arises in the following circumstances: i) Respondent No. 2 lodged a report with the Police Station Bhupal-pura on 13. 10. 2000 against the present accused petitioner stating that some time back one Rajesh Lodha who was brother of present accu- sed petitioner was running VC (lottery) and in that complainant was also one of the members and that VC (lottery) was of Rs. 50000/- and for that he also issued a cheque on 20. 9. 90 No. 667239 after putting signatures on the cheque, but no amount was mentioned in it and that cheque was given to Rajesh Lodha. Thereafter the amount of VC (lottery) was paid by him to Rajesh Lodha and that blank cheque was demanded by the complainant from Rajesh Lodha and Rajesh Lodha informed the complainant that blank cheque was with him brother Dinesh Lodha, present accused petitioner, but that cheque was not returned to him. Thereafter the accused petitioner was found involved in making forged notes and remained in jail for number of periods and thereafter Rajesh Lodha was murdered. Thereafter even the present accused petitioner was involved in so many criminal cases and he had come back to Udaipur from Bombay and by dishonestly to defraud the complainant, the accused petitioner inserted amount of Rs. 9,50,000/- in that blank cheque and the presented that cheque for payment and thus by doing so he had tried to deceive the complainant as no transaction had taken place between him and the accused petitioner. Thereafter he enquired from the Bank and he came to know that no transaction had taken place since 1992 and thereafter action be taken against the accused petitioner. On this report, the police registered a case for the aforesaid offences and started investigation. The case of the present accused petitioner is that cheque No. 667239 dated 14. 6. 2000 for a sum of Rs. 9,50,000/- was issued by respondent No. 2 in favour of the accused petitioner and when he presented the cheque in the Bank, it was dishonored. Thereafter the accused petitioner gave a notice u/sec. 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act to the complainant on 21. 9. 2000 which was received by the complainant on 23. 9. 2000 and a reply was also given by the complainant on 26. 9. 2000. Thus the report which was lodged by the complainant on 13. 10. 2000 was only lodged with an intention to defeat the claim put by the accused petitioner against the complainant for offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act. Hence this FIR should be quashed. On the other hand, a reply was also filed by the complainant to this petition stating that on being enquired form the Bank, the Bank issued a certificate on 25. 9. 2000 to the complainant that current account No. C-D-117 was closed on 30. 11. 92 and the disputed cheque No. 667239 was issued on 30. 7. 90 and subsequently nine cheque books were issued and each cheque book was containing 25 cheques before closing of the account. The Certificate of the Bank is annexed as Annex. 1. Thus, present accused petitioner has misused the misplaced cheque just to cause irreparable loss to the complainant and to grab money from the respondent No. 2 on account of misplaced cheque. Hence no question of quashing the FIR arises.
(3.) THAT at this stage, without entering into serious controversy, it may be stated that from the certificate Annex. 1 issued by the Bank, it is clear that the disputed cheque was issued on 30. 7. 90. Thus prima facie cases exists in favour of the complainant as it is the case of the complainant that the petitioner has misused the misplaced cheque. The learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on Sunil Kumar vs. M/s. Escorts Yamaha Motors Ltd. and Ors. (1),. In my opinion, the facts narrated in the above judgment are different from the facts of the present case as in the present case as per the allegation of the complainant, the cheque was issued in the year 1990 and the same was presented in the Bank in the year 2000 after inserting the amount of Rs. 9,50,000/ -. Therefore, in these circumstances, to say that no case is made out against the present petitioner is not to be appreciated at this stage. If no charge-sheet or complaint has been laid down in Court and the matter is only at the stage of investigation by police, the High Court cannot in exercise of inherent jurisdiction interfere with the statutory power of the police to investigate the alleged offence and quash proceeding. In this regard the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Jehan Singh vs. Delhi Administration (2), may be referred to. ;