Tarlok Singh Chauhan JUDGMENT
Tarlok Singh Chauhan, J.
1. Can recourse to Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure be taken as if it is a routine procedure, especially when the case is predominantly of a civil nature, is the question which falls for consideration in this petition?
2. The petitioner is the accused, who has approached this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short "Cr.P.C.") for quashing of FIR No. 145 registered at Police Station Sadar, Shimla on 6th July, 2015 under Sections 403, 406, 420, 467 and 468 IPC pursuant to the directions issued by the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Court No. (5), Shimla to this effect in a complaint filed by respondent No. 2 (complaint) under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. before it.
3. Initially the respondent No. 2 addressed a complaint to the SHO Police Station Sadar, Shimla on 22nd August, 2014 for registration of an FIR against the petitioner on the allegation that he was dealing in business of tour and travels by the name of Jai Maa Bhima Kali Tour and Travels and participated in the tenders invited by the ARTRAC, Shimla for passenger carrying light vehicles. He deposited ` 1,62,500/- as security amount with the Station Headquarter Shimla ARTRAC vide bank draft No. 348959 dated 20.3.2012 drawn on UCO Bank ARTRAC Shimla, in favour of Station Commander, which was issued through the bank account of the petitioner, because at that time the complainant had no account in his name in this bank. It is further alleged that for preparing the aforesaid bank draft, the complainant had already paid an amount of ` 1,65,000/- through cheque bearing No. 179180 in the bank account of the petitioner on 15.1.2013 from the bank account No. 32160648686 SBI Totu of M/s. Jai Maa Bhima Kali Tour and Travels.
4. The tender of the complainant was accepted and accordingly the tender work was awarded in his favour. The Station Headquarter Shimla ARTRAC being fully satisfied with the work performed and services rendered by the complainant, renewed/extended the work for the year 2013-14 i.e. up to September, 2013 and the complainant even got renewed the security amount of Rs. 1,62,500/- in favour of the Station Commander Shimla.
5. The grievance of the complainant is that when on completion of the contract, the Station Commander, Shimla Headquarter ARTRAC released/refunded the security amount to the complainant vide bank draft No. 348959 dated 20.3.2012, (which had been renewed by the complainant on 20.7.2013), the same was presented by him to his banker i.e. SBI Ghanahatti Branch but was returned by the bank vide memo dated 21.10.2013 with the endorsement "DD has been reported lost/Out of date." The complainant thereafter visited the UCO Bank ARTRAC from time to time and made oral request for release of the draft, which was not acceded to by the officials of the UCO Bank. Thereafter the complainant approached the Station Headquarter ARTRAC, Shimla, who issued a letter dated 17.2.2014 to ........