IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF JULY 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA CRIMINAL PETITION NO.5847 OF 2015 BETWEEN:
B P SURYAKUMARI S/O B.K. PREMKUMAR AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS R/AT NO.46/1-1, ‘ISHANYA’, 3RD CROSS, PALACE LOOP ROAD, VASANTANGAR,BENGALURU-52 ... PETITIONER (BY SRI: SUNIL KUMAR PATEL, ADVOCATE FOR SRI: S.K.VENKATA REDDY, ADVOCATE) AND M/S RAJESH EXPORTS LTD COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER COMPANIES ACT, AND HAVING ITS OFFICE AT NO.4, BATAVIA CHAMBERS, KUMARA KRUPA ROAD, KUMARA PARK EAST, BENGALURU-01 REP BY ITS OFFICER, AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE MR. B.G. MALLIKARJUN ... RESPONDENT (BY SRI: P RAJU, ADVOCATE) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE COMPLAINT IN C.C.NO.2606/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE XXVII A.C.M.M., BENGALURU CITY AGAINST THE PETITIONER.
THIS CRL.P COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
O R D E R This petition is filed under section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.2606/2015 on the file of XXVII Addl. CMM, Bengaluru.
Heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned counsel for respondent. Perused the records.
2. Respondent herein filed a complaint under section 138 of N.I. Act seeking action against the petitioner for dishonour of the cheque bearing No.588076 dated 26.11.2014 for Rs.2,80,00,000/-.
3. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that there was no existing debt or liability on the part of the petitioner at the time of issuance of cheque. Debt was incurred by M/s. Time Plus in relation to credit purchase which was the subject matter of a written agreement dated 27.10.2010. In terms of the said agreement, four mortgage deeds were executed by the petitioner and hence, the petitioner is not liable to answer the charge under section 138 of N.I. Act.
4. I do not find any substance in the contentions urged by learned counsel for the petitioner. Undisputedly, the cheque in question was issued by the petitioner. Petitioner is the drawer of the said cheque. By virtue of section 139 of the Act, a rebuttable presumption is created that the cheque in question was issued by M/s. Time Plus in discharge of debt or liability due by M/s. Time Plus, unless contrary is proved. The contention of the petitioner is therefore a matter of rebuttal evidence which requires to be urged only during trial. There are clear averments in the petition that M/s. Time Plus was due to the complainant company a sum of Rs.2,80,00,000/-. The accused viz., petitioner herein undertook to pay said debt or liability of M/s. Time Plus and accordingly issued the aforesaid cheque bearing No.588076 dated 26.11.2014 for Rs.2,80,00,000/-. In view of this assertion and alleged dishonour of the cheque, renders the petitioner primarily liable for the consequences under section 138 of N.I. Act. As a result, no case is made out for quashing the impugned proceedings.
Consequently, the petition is dismissed.
Sd/- JUDGE *mn/-