Samuel Raj vs The Inspector of Police (Crime) Valliyur, Tirunelveli Dist.

S.T. Ramalingam, J.—This petition u/s 482 Cr.P.C. to call for the F.I.R. No.121 of 1989 pending on the file of the Inspector of Police,

Crimes, Valliyur, Tirunelveli District and quash the same has been filed under the following circumstances.

The petitioner Samuel Raj, as per the F.I.R. lodged by one Peter borrowed a sum of Rs.5,000/- on 14.10.1988 promising to repay the same

with interest within a month. However, he defaulted to repay the loan. Thereafter the petitioner issued a cheque for Rs.5,000/- dated 12.12.1988

drawn on Indian Overseas Bank. The cheque, when sent for collection was bounced back with an endorsement that the drawer has no funds in his

accounts. On that account, Peter filed a complaint against the petitioner before the respondent. The respondent registered the complaint as Crime

No. 121 of 1989 u/s 420 I.P.C. This petition has been filed to quash the F.I.R. registered u/s 420 I.P.C. on the ground that on the face of the

complaint, an offence u/s 420 I.P.C. has not been made out. According to the learned counsel, in order to attract Section 420 I.P.C., the

complainant should have been deceived and thereby dishonestly induced to deliver any property to any person, or to make, alter or destroy the

whole or any part of a valuable security, or anything which is signed or sealed, and which is capable of being converted into a valuable security.

The cheque was given to discharge an existing debt. By receiving the cheque, the complainant has not parted with any valuable security. Receiving

useless security for an existing debt cannot form the basis for an offence punishable u/s 420 I.P.C. I entirely agree with the reasoning adopted by

the learned counsel for the petitioner and as such, I find that the receipt of the cheque for an existing debt will not form the basis for an offence

punishable u/s 420 I.P.C. in the event of the cheque bouncing back for want of funds. The registration of the F.I.R. for an offence punishable u/s

20 I.P.C. will prolong unnecessary litigation resulting in the waste of public money and time. As such the F.I.R. is quashed and the petition shall

stand allowed.