Baldev Singh vs State of Punjab and Another

Mehinder Singh Sullar, J.—The contour of the facts, which requires to be noticed, relevant for the limited purpose of deciding the core controversy, involved in the instant petition and oozing out, from the record, is that, petitioner Baldev Singh son of Shingara Singh, was stated to have taken loan from complainant Bikkar Singh son of Gajjan Singh respondent No. 2 (for brevity "the complainant"). In order to discharge his legal liability, he issued the cheque in question for a sum of Rs. 35,000/- to him (complainant). The cheque was presented in the bank for payment, which was dis-honoured/returned with the remarks "payment stopped by drawer" and "insufficient funds". According to the complainant, the petitioner-accused did not make the payment of the impugned amount within the stipulated period, even after the issuance of statutory notice. In the background of these allegations, the complainant filed the complaint (Annexure P1) against the petitioner-accused, for the commission of offence punishable u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter to be referred as "the N.I. Act"), in which, he was summoned as accused by the Magistrate, by virtue of impugned summoning order dated 4.10.2006 (Annexure P2).

The petitioner did not feel satisfied and preferred the present petition for quashing the impugned complaint (Annexure P1), summoning order (Annexure P2) and all other subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, invoking the provisions of Section 482 Cr.PC, inter-alia on the various grounds in general and that since he has already paid/deposited the entire amount of loan, subject matter of the cheque in question in the Court, by way of receipt dated 7.1.2008 (Annexure P3), so, the indicated impugned complaint, summoning order and all other subsequent proceedings arising thereto, deserve to be quashed, in particular. On the basis of aforesaid grounds, the petitioner sought to quash the impugned complaint and summoning order, as described hereinbefore.

The complainant-respondent No. 2 refuted the prayer of the petitioner and filed the reply, inter-alia taking certain preliminary objections of, maintainability of the petition, cause of action and locus standi of the petitioner. The cheque of Rs. 35000/- was stated to have been issued in discharge of part liability and not in lieu of entire amount of loan. It will not be out of place to mention here that the complainant has not denied the deposit of amount of the cheque in question in the Court by the petitioner, vide receipt (Annexure P3) and that he has moved an application (Annexure P4) for its withdrawal. However, he prayed for dismissal of the main petition.

After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, going through the record with their valuable assistance and after considering the entire matter deeply, to my mind, the instant petition deserves to be accepted in this respect.

As is evident from the record, that the dis-honoured cheque in question issued by the petitioner was of an amount of Rs. 35,000/- . He has already deposited the indicated amount in the Court, vide receipt (Annexure P3) at the first instance. It is not a matter of dispute that even the complainant has moved an application (Annexure P4) for issuing the refund voucher of the amount in question. He has no where stated that petitioner has not deposited the amount in question in the Court or it was not withdrawn by him. Therefore, once it stands proved on record that the payment has already been made/deposited by the petitioner-accused at the first instance, then, continuation of complaint (Annexure P1), summoning order (Annexure P2) and all other subsequent proceedings arising thereto, would amount to deep misuse/abuse of process of Court and deserve to be quashed, in view of law laid down by Hon''ble Apex Court in case Damodar S.Prabhu v. Sayed Babalal H. 2010(2) RCR (Criminal) 851.

In the light of aforesaid reasons, the present petition is accepted with costs. Consequently, the complaint (Annexure P1), summoning order (Annexure P2) and all other subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are hereby quashed in the obtaining circumstances of the case.