Quashing of FIR denied where withdrawn complaint did not bar investigation and disputed facts required trial.

Withdrawal of an earlier complaint and Section 156(3) application before cognizance did not bar a later FIR based on the same broad transaction, because the prohibition is against a second FIR on the same cause of action, not an FIR already registered while complaint proceedings were pending. The Court also noted that the investigation materials disclosed a prima facie case, while the defence raised disputed questions about the underlying transaction, alleged misuse of blank cheques, and signatures. Those factual disputes were held unsuitable for quashing in writ or inherent jurisdiction, so no interference with the FIR and chargesheet was warranted.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the registration of the FIR could be quashed on the ground that an earlier complaint and application under Section 156(3) had been withdrawn and the later FIR was on similar allegations; and (ii) whether the FIR and chargesheet disclosed a case fit for interference under the writ and inherent jurisdiction, or whether the dispute involved questions of fact requiring trial.

Issue (i): whether the registration of the FIR could be quashed on the ground that an earlier complaint and application under Section 156(3) had been withdrawn and the later FIR was on similar allegations.

Analysis: The earlier application under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 had been withdrawn before cognizance, and the subsequent withdrawal of the complaint did not operate as a bar to registration of an FIR already lodged by the police. The procedural scheme permits both a complaint case and a police investigation in respect of the same occurrence, and the prohibition is against a second FIR on the same cause of action, not against the FIR that was registered while the complaint proceedings were pending. The earlier proceedings had not resulted in a merits determination by the Magistrate, and therefore the withdrawal did not furnish a ground to extinguish the criminal investigation.

Conclusion: The challenge to the FIR on the basis of the earlier withdrawn complaint failed.

Issue (ii): whether the FIR and chargesheet disclosed a case fit for interference under the writ and inherent jurisdiction, or whether the dispute involved questions of fact requiring trial.

Analysis: The materials collected in investigation, including the allegations regarding inducement, execution of loan documents, issuance of cheques, and alleged use of different signatures, disclosed a prima facie case against the petitioner against whom the chargesheet had been filed. The rival version that the transaction was part of a committee/chit arrangement and that blank cheques were misused raised disputed questions of fact. Such disputed factual issues are not amenable to adjudication in proceedings for quashing, and the Court was not persuaded that the case fell within the exceptional categories warranting interference to prevent abuse of process.

Conclusion: No ground for quashing was made out on merits, and the petition failed.

Final Conclusion: The criminal proceedings were permitted to continue, and no interference was warranted in exercise of writ or inherent jurisdiction.

Ratio Decidendi: Withdrawal of an earlier complaint before cognizance does not bar a later FIR on the same broad transaction where the Magistrate has not adjudicated the matter on merits, and quashing is not justified where the allegations and defence raise disputed questions of fact and disclose a prima facie offence.

---