Reena Ghosh vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Heard.

This petition has been filed for quashment of FIR No.233/2018 registered at Police Station Mohan Nagar, Durg and subsequent criminal proceeding arising out of the said offence pending before the CJM, Durg.

Prosecution case, in brief, is that complainant Sunil Kumar Gupta entered into an oral agreement for sale of the land situated at village Nagpura, area admeasuring 5500 Sq. Ft., with the complainant and the complainant also made payment in installments to the tune of Rs.14 lakhs to the petitioners. However, the petitioners neither executed the sale-deed nor returned the aforesaid amount, therefore, the complainant made a complaint before Police Station, Mohan Nagar, Durg on 23.6.2018, whereby, FIR No.233/2018 was registered against the petitioners for the offence punishable under Section 420/34 of the IPC. In the said FIR, the complainant averred that petitioner No.1 has given two cheques to him. However, both the cheques i.e. the first cheque bearing No.357791 dated 8.11.2017 for the amount of Rs.1,50,000/- and the second cheque bearing No.040272 dated 30.1.2018 for the amount of Rs.2,80,000/-, got dishonoured. The second cheque got dishonoured on account of 'stop payment' instructions given by petitioner No.1, based upon which, the aforesaid offence has been registered.

Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the complainant, suppressing the fact that he had earlier also, based on similar allegations, made a complaint at Police Station, Pulgaon, in which, during investigation, the complainant has categorically admitted that he has no receipts of payment made towards the petitioners, on which, Police Station, Pulgaon gave an information on 22.4.2018 vide No.64/18 to the complainant under Section 155 of the Code to take a proper legal recourse before the concerned Court However, the complainant, instead of approaching the criminal Court to file a complaint for the said offence, lodged a second FIR at Police Station Mohan Nagar bearing No.233/2018, in which, after investigation, the charge sheet has also been filed. He would place reliance on the judgment rendered by the Supreme Court in the matter of Vijay Kumar Ghai and others Vs State of West Bengal, (2022) 7 SCC 124, in which, it has categorically been observed that the second FIR, where the information concerns the same cognizable offence alleged in the first FIR, is not permissible. He would further submit that the petitioners had already informed SBI Branch, Durg on 18.11.2017 and Police Station, Mohan Nagar, Durg, on 15.11.2017, about loss of the cheque book bearing cheque Nos.357751 to 357800 and with regard to dishonour of the said cheques, the complainant has filed Complaint Case No.4176/2018 under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. He lastly submits that since the complainant has suppressed the earlier complaint given to the Police and the same has already been closed and further, the matter relates to a civil dispute, which is given the colour of crime by the complainant, the criminal proceedings against the petitioners are liable to be quashed as continuation of the same would amount to abuse of the process of law.

Per contra, learned counsel for the complainant would submit that the essential ingredients required under Section 420 of IPC are present in the case. He submits that only for the fact that the complainant has earlier given an information to another Police Station does not bar the judicial remedy.

Learned counsel for the State would submit that it is a fact on record that the complainant has suppressed the material fact while lodging the FIR at Police Station Mohan Nagar, Durg. She submits that during the course of investigation, the evidence has been collected and thereafter, the charge sheet has been filed in accordance with law.

Having considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties, it appears that the complainant (respondent No.2), for the similar allegations, prior to lodging of the present FIR No.233/2018 at Police Station Mohan Nagar, Durg, had given an information in this regard to Police Station Pulgaon District Durg also, in which, the Police has not registered the offence. However, considering the nature of the dispute, the Police gave an information to the complainant under Section 155 of the Code vide No.64/2018 to take legal recourse before the concerned Court. However, the complainant instead of taking proper legal recourse by filing a complaint before the concerned Court of law or challenging the said information given to him by the Police and suppressing the aforesaid information, lodged FIR No.233/2018 at Police Station, Mohan Nagar, District Durg.

In Vijay Kumar Ghai (supra), an application under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. filed before the Metropolitan Magistrate, Teez Hazari, New Delhi was dismissed and there was no further challenge against the same. Instead respondent No. 2 therein chose to file a complaint with the same cause of action in Bowbazar, Police Station Calcutta. The multiple complaints by the same party against the same accused in respect of the same incident, was found fatal in view of the principle propounded in matters of Krishna Lal Chawla Vs. State of UP, (2021) 5 SCC 435, T.T. Antony Vs. State of Kerala, (2001) 6 SCC 181 and Mr. K. Jayaram v. BDA, (2022) 12 SCC 815.

In the instant case, in respect of an oral agreement to sale, even no acknowledgment of payment was received by the complainant from the petitioners with regard to the cheques given by him and further, the petitioners had also given information to the Police about loss of the above cheques, therefore, considering all these aspects, it appears that the present is a dispute of civil nature.

For the foregoing, looking to the fact that the complainant, suppressing the earlier information given to the Police in this regard, approached another Police Station for the same offence and in the said Police Station, after investigation, the charge sheet has also been filed, this Court is of the opinion that continuation of the criminal proceedings against the petitioners is not proper as the same would amount to gross miscarriage of justice.

Hence, this petition deserves to be and is hereby allowed. The FIR No.233/2018 is quashed and the subsequent criminal proceeding arising out of the said offence pending before the CJM, Durg are also quashed.