Through this constitutional petition the Petitioner has assailed the vires of order dated 30-11-2016 passed by the learned Ex-officious Justice of Peace, Dunyapur, whereby the application moved by Respondent No. 3 under Section 22-A, Cr.P.C. was accepted.
2. Brief facts giving rise to the present petition are that Respondent No. 3 deals in fertilizers and has set up a shop at Railway Road, Dunyapur. On 15-6-2016 the Petitioner came to his shop and purchased 135 bags, of urea worth Rs. 189,000/-and loaded them in a Mazda van. It was Zohar time so the Petitioner and the Complainant went to mosque to offer their prayer. The Petitioner said that he would make payment for his purchase on his way back. When the Respondent No. 3 returned from the mosque he found that the Petitioner had vanished with loaded van without making payment for his purchase. The Complainant got FIR No. 249/2016 dated 19-7-2016 registered 'bout this incident. Subsequently, the Petitioner approached Respondent No. 3 for an out-of-the-Court settlement and the matter was considered in a Punchayat. The Petitioner gave Cheque No. 93667123 for Rs. 50,000/- to the Complainant in partial discharge of his liability and promised to pay the remaining amount of Rs. 139,000/- in two installments over a period of six months. When Respondent No.- 3 presented the said cheque to the.concerned bank for encasement the same was dishonoured. He approached the learned Ex-officio Justice of Peace seeking direction to Respondent-SHO for registration of case against the Petitioner which was accepted vide order dated 30-11-2016. Hence, this petition.
3. Learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that the application 'filed by Respondent No. 3 before the learned Ex-officious Justice of Peace was misconceived. The amount of cheque was covered in FIR No. 249/2016. As such, second FIR could not be ordered to be registered. He also argued that the Petitioner had filed a suit for rendition of accounts against Respondent No. 3 which was still pending. Until the suit is adjudicated registration of criminal case against the Petitioner cannot be ordered. On the other hand, learned counsel for Respondent No. 3 controverted the contentions of the Petitioner. He prayed for dismissal of this petition.
4. Arguments heard. Record perused.
5. FIR No. 249/2016 was registered in respect of an occurrence that took place on 15-6-2016. The Petitioner approached Respondent No. 3 for a settlement and an agreement was reached where under he gave him a cheque of Rs. 50,000/- in partial discharge of his liability. The fact that the said cheque was dishonored constitutes a separate offence.
6. So far as civil suit is concerned, it is observed that the tendency of said suit is no bar to the registration of case under Section (.% 489-F, PPC. Prima facie, a cognizable offence has been made out from the contents of the application of Respondent No. 3.
7. For the above reasons, no exception can be taken to the impugned order dated 30-11-2016. This constitutional petition has no merit and is hereby dismissed.