[2025:RJ-JP:45284] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 5060/2018 Shyoji Ram S/o Shrawan Lal, R/o Dewanda Ki Dhani Village Dehamikalan Via Bagru Tehsil Sanganer, District Jaipur (Raj.) ----Accused-Petitioner Versus 1. State of Rajasthan through PP 2. Vikram Singh S/o Hari Singh, R/o Makaan No.59, Khawas Ji Kabagh, Durgapura, Jaipur (Raj.) ----Non-petitioner/Complainant For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rajveer Singh For Respondent(s) : Mr. Manvendra Singh Shekhawat, PP Mr. G.P. Sharma, for complainant HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND SHARMA Order 11/11/2025 1. Petitioner has filed the present criminal miscellaneous petition for seeking a direction to quash FIR No.526/2018 dated 18.06.2018 registered at Police Station Jawahar Circle, District Jaipur City (East) for the offences under Section 420, 406, 467, 468, 471 & 120-B of IPC. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that FIR has been lodged by the complainant in respect of Cheque No.016671 for Rs.15 lakhs drawn on ICICI Bank, Branch Raja Park, Jaipur with the allegation that the cheque was issued by the petitioner, however, it was not encashed by the bank. Learned counsel further submits that pursuant to same cheque, one complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter to be referred as 'the Act of 1881') was filed by [2025:RJ-JP:45284] (2 of 4) [CRLMP-5060/2018] the complainant before the Court of Special Metropolitan Magistrate, N.I. Act Cases No.1, Jaipur Metropolitan-II and thus, for one and the same cause of action, two different remedies are being pursued by the complainant. Whereas in the light of Article 20(2) of the Constitution of India as well as Section 300 of Cr.P.C., no one can be forced to face trial more than once in respect of one incident or offence. Learned counsel also submits that during the pendency of the present petition, even the complaint filed by the complainant under Section 138 of the Act of 1881 has been dismissed by the competent Court vide judgment dated 04.11.2022. Hence, under these circumstances, in case, the petitioner is permitted to be prosecuted pursuant to impugned FIR, it would cause miscarriage of justice and would be an abuse of process of law. 3. Learned Public Prosecutor as well as learned counsel for the complainant opposed the petition and submitted that the allegations levelled in the FIR are quite specific and clear, where reference of filing complaint against the petitioner under the provisions of under Section 138 of the Act of 1881 has been given in the FIR itself and rather it has been highlighted that during the pendency of trial of the complaint and after recording of the statements, it has come out that the petitioner was not maintaining any account whatsoever in ICICI Bank, Branch Raja Park, Jaipur and the said cheque was manipulated by the petitioner, which is not only cheating but also amounts to fabricating the valuable negotiable instruments. Hence, it cannot be said that merely by lodging complaint under Section 138 of the Act of 1881, the complainant has exhausted his remedies and [2025:RJ-JP:45284] (3 of 4) [CRLMP-5060/2018] cannot be permitted to lodge a separate FIR for the offences under Section 420, 406, 467, 468, 471 & 120-B of IPC. 4. Learned counsel for the complainant produced a copy of judgment dated 04.11.2022 passed by the competent Court in Regular Criminal Case No.3091/13, whereby the complaint filed by the complainant was decided by the trial Court and has indicated that as the cheque in question was not a valid negotiable instrument, therefore, complaint under Section 138 of the Act of 1881 was not entertained, however, while deciding complaint following directions have been given by the trial Court:- ";gka ij ;g Hkh mYys[kuh; gS fd izdj.k esa nkSjkus fopkj.k U;k;ky; dh n`f"V esa cSad dh vksj ls dh xbZ ?kksj ykijokgh laKku esa vk;h gSA tgka lkekU; vuqdze esa cSad tSlh egRoiw.kZ laLFkku ftl ij vke vkneh izxk< fo'okl djrk gS rFkk viuh tekiwath cSad ds Hkjksls cSad esa tek djkrk gSA ogha mlh laLFkku }kjk pSd tSlh ewY;oku izfrHkwfr ,oa ijkdzE; fyf[kr dks fcuk [kkrk [kksys vkSj fcuk xzkgd dk fjdksMZ j[ks tkjh dj nsuk U;k;ky; dh n`f"V esa ykijokghiw.kZ d`R; gSA cSad }kjk pSd tSlh ewY;oku izfrHkwfr ,oa ijkdzE; fyf[kr dks fdlh Hkh O;fDr dk fjdksMZ j[ks fcuk tkjh dj fn;k tkuk lekt ds vlkekftd rRoksa dks nLrkostksa ls lacaf/kr dwVjpuk ds vijk/kksa ds fy;s c<kok nsus tSlk gSA ,sls esa cSad ds Lrj ij dh xbZ bl izdkj dh ?kksj ykijokgh dks cSad ds mPp vf/kdkjh ds laKku esa ykuk o lacaf/kr cSad ds fo:) dk;Zokgh dus ds fy, vkbZ-lh-vkbZ- lh-vkbZ- cSad 'kk[kk jktkikdZ] ds rRdkyhu tujy eSustj] t;iqj jkt- o lHkh cSdksa ij fu;a=.k j[kus okyh Hkkjrh; fjtoZ cSad] t;iqj dks lwfpr fd;k tkuk mfpr izrhr gksrk gSA bl laca/k esa fu.kZ; dh ,d izfr vkbZ-lh- vkbZ-lh-vkbZ- cSad 'kk[kk jktkikdZ] t;iqj o ,d izfr Hkkjrh; fjtoZ cSad dks e; vxzs"k.k i= ds mfpr dk;Zokgh djus gsrq izsf"kr dh tkos rFkk vkbZ-lh- vkbZ-lh-vkbZ- cSad] t;iqj ds tujy eSustj vkSj Hkkjrh; fjtoZ cSad] t;iqj }kjk lacaf/kr cSad ds fo:) dh xbZ dk;Zokgh ls bl U;k;ky; dks voxr djok;k tk;sA" 5. By relying upon the aforesaid findings, learned counsel for the respondents prayed for dismissing the instant criminal miscellaneous petition. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 7. It is a settled proposition of law that jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is extremely limited and only in the cases, where by perusal of the contents of FIR, no prima facie [2025:RJ-JP:45284] (4 of 4) [CRLMP-5060/2018] cognizable offence is made out or in the cases, where it comes out that the FIR cannot be lodged on account of specific prohibition under law or the FIR is a clear outcome of malice or vengeance, this Court can exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 8. Bare perusal of the contents of impugned FIR as well as the observations made by the trial Court in judgment dated 04.11.2022 would make it clear that offences alleged against the petitioner in impugned FIR are prima facie made out. Hence, there is no scope for interference in the instant criminal miscellaneous petition, and the same is hereby dismissed. (ANAND SHARMA),J DIVYA /36