Complain u/s-138 of NIA is filed – No ground to Quash the Separate FIR u/s-420 or 406 of IPC – Offence u/s-138 & u/s-420 or 406 of IPC not mutually exclusive – Both can go on Sid-be-Side – No Double Jeopardy : HC

Complain u/s-138 of NIA is filed – No ground to Quash the Separate FIR u/s-420 or 406 of IPC – Offence u/s-138 & u/s-420 or 406 of IPC not mutually exclusive – Both can go on Sid-be-Side – No Double Jeopardy: HC

Chandigarh: September  20, 2018.

The bench of Punjab And Haryana High Court at Chandigarh Hon’ble Mr. JUSTICE RAJBIR SEHRAWAT  held that  Offence u/s-138 & u/s-420 or 406 of IPC not mutually exclusive – Both can go on Sid-be-Side – No Double Jeopardy. 

Short Brief of Case:

In the case of M/s Anant Tools(Unit No.II) Pvt. Ltd and Others Vs. Anant Tools Pvt. Ltd-Jalandhar.  (CRM-M-17300/2017),(H.C). That the respondent – M/s  Anant Tools Pvt. Limited filed a complaint against the present petitioners, having a little bit similar name, i.e. M/s Anant  Tools(Unit No.II) Pvt. Limited, and its Directors. The allegations in the complaint are that earlier the complainant and the accused had a common business and were initially running a joint business. However, thereafter, the business was separated by the two. An amount of Rs.18,52,253/- was required to be paid by the accused No.1 to the complainant, For the discharge of the above said liability, the petitioners had issued cheque dated 08.01.2009 for the above-said amount of Rs.18,52,253/-. For the amounts involved in other complaints, two other cheques were also issued. However, the cheques were dishonored by the Bank.

Thereafter Complaints being filed against the petitioners under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. During the pendency of the above said complaints against the petitioners, then they had also got lodged an FIR against the complainant. As an attempt for compromising the entire matter, the complainant had agreed for quashing of the complaints, at the stage when the complaints had filed an application for seeking anticipatory bail; in the FIR case lodged by the petitioner. However, thereafter, the complainant got dishonest and the complainant tried to get out of the agreement arrived at between the parties.

Hence, the petitioners moved the above-said applications for compounding, by attaching the drafts for the amounts of cheque involved in the complaint; with a further undertaking to pay any more reasonable amount deemed appropriate by the Court. But these applications have been dismissed by the trial Court. Hence, Present petition file to Challenging trial court order & seeking Quashing of the Complain and summoning order.

The High Court found in the Present petition that the present petitioners neither paid Rs. 12 lakhs to him nor got the FIR against the complainant quashed; in compliance of the compromise arrived at between the parties, is finally Broken down. As a result, this Court had passed order dated 05.08.2014, separately; in those three petitions, holding that the agreement between the parties is declared to be rescinded and the parties would be at liberty to prosecute their criminal proceedings against each other.

The trial Court has rightly rejected the application for compounding moved by the petitioners; for the lack of necessary consent from the complainant. This Court does not find any illegality or infirmity in  the order passed by the trial Court. So far as other relief prayed for in this petition, qua quashing of complaint and summoning orders, on merits of the case are concerned, this Court does not find any factual or legal basis for those reliefs. In view of the above, finding no merit in these petitions, the same are dismissed.

Download full judgment: https://highcourtchd.gov.in/lts_judgments/CRM%2031873%202018.pdf