VIJAY KUMAR VYAS,J. - (1.) Both these matters are connected, therefore they are being heard together and decided by this common order. Learned counsel for petitioner Nand Kishore Tank submitted that on 14.11.2008 an agreement was executed between Nand Kishore and Surendra Singh for loan of Rs. 8,50,000/- which was borrowed by Surendra Singh. In lieu thereof, Surendra Singh gave a signed cheque on 16.12.2008 and the same was dishonoured on 12.1.2009. On 22.1.2009, Surendra Singh lodged an FIR No. 13/2009, alleging that the said blank cheque and stamp of agreement were stolen from his office and had been used after forgery. After investigation, police found the allegations false and submitted final report in negative. A complaint under section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act was submitted by Nand Kishore before the Magistrate of the jurisdiction against Surendra Singh. After cognizance, Surendra Singh appeared before the court on 24.4.2010. Again to create a false defence, Surendra Singh lodged another FIR which was registered as FIR No. 141/2010 on the same allegations as were made in the earlier FIR. Police after investigation, submitted a final report in negative and the same was forwarded back to police by the Magistrate of the jurisdiction for further investigation and after further investigation, police submitted charge sheet against Nand Kishore for offence under section 420, 380, 467, 468 and 471 IPC which is pending trial. The investigation by police in collusion with Surendra Singh was unjust and unfair and consequent prosecution of Nand Kishore is against law. FIR No. 141/2010 was lodged just to counterblast the action taken by Surendra Singh in the matter under section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act and it is glaring example of abuse of process of law. When a cognizance has been taken on a complaint for offence under section 138, NI Act, on the basis of same facts a First Information Report cannot be instituted just to counter the same and such FIR deserves to be quashed and set aside. In support, learned counsel cited Sunil Kumar v. Escorts Yamaha Motors Ltd. and Ors., (1999) 8 SCC 468 and S.K. Gulati & Ors. v. The State of Rajasthan & Anr. 2004(2) Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 862.
(2.) Learned counsel for Surendra Singh submitted that Nand Kishore was an employee in his factory. He had stolen from his office the cheque in question. After preparing a forged receipt and agreement, he instituted proceedings against the petitioner for offence under section 138, NI Act. FIR No. 13/2009 was lodged by Atul Sharma, Manager of his concern and that was pertaining to two cheques belonging to his personal account stolen by Munna Singh and Kailash, the other employees. However, there was a reference of the cheque in question because it was also not traceable, belonging to the account of Surendra Singh. Police investigated the matter only with regard to the stolen cheques of Atul Sharma and submitted a final report in negative. When Surendra Singh was summoned by trial court to join the trial for offence under section 138, NI Act and the petitioner appeared before that court on 29.4.2010, he came to know about his untraceable cheque that it has been stolen by Nand Kishore. Therefore, he lodged FIR No. 141/2010 on 1.6.2010, wherein, police after due investigation, found that Nand Kishore after stealing the cheque in question, forged an agreement and falsely implicated Surendra Singh in a proceeding for offence under section 138, NI Act. Therefore, police submitted charge sheet against Nand Kishore for offence under section 420, 380, 467, 468 and 471 IPC. After appearance of petitioner Nand Kishore before the court in proceedings under section 138, NI Act and lodging of FIR No. 141/2010, Surendra Singh informed the court concerned the said fact whereupon learned court requisitioned a report under section 210 Cr.P.C., 1973 Thus, in the year 2010 itself, Nand Kishore become aware of fact of lodging FIR against him. Despite, after lapse of almost 4 years, he has now approached this court for quashing of FIR No. 141/2010. Since police after due investigation, has charge-sheeted Nand Kishore and he is facing trial for offence pertaining to forging agreement etc., the proceedings instituted by Nand Kishore for offence under section 138, NI Act deserves to be quashed and continuance thereof will be abuse of process of court. Learned counsel in alternate, further submitted that the trials of both the matters, connected inter se, are required to be conducted by same court simultaneously so that truth can be ascertained with all due diligence. In support, he has cited Kewal Krishan S/o Lachman Das v. Suraj Bhan and another - 1980 (supp) SCC 499.
(3.) I have heard learned Public Prosecutor as well and gone through all the material available on record.;