IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF AUGUST 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA CRIMINAL PETITION NO.7072 OF 2016 BETWEEN 1. BRILLIANT TUTORIALS PVT. LTD., OLD NO.24, NEW NO.8 HARINGTON ROAD 12 AVENUE, GILLCHRIST AVENUE CHETPET, CHENNAI - 600 031 REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR ALSO AT:
NO.12, MASILAMANI STREET T.NAGAR CHENNAI – 600 017 2. VASANTI NEELAKANTAN W/O SRI NEELAKANTAN AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS OLD NO.24, NEW NO.8 HARINGTON ROAD 12 AVENUE, GILLCHRIST AVENUE CHETPET CHENNAI – 600 031 ... PETITIONERS (By Sri SUHAS T.L, ADVOCATE FOR Sri HARSHA D. JOSHI, ADVOCATE) AND RELIGARE FINVEST LIMITED NO.1314, 1ST AND 2ND FLOOR DOUBLE ROAD HAL II STAGE, NEXT TO KHT MOTORS INDIRANAGAR BENGALURU - 560 038 REPRESENTED BY ITS DULY CONSTITUTED ATTORNEY/AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE Mr. ALI HASKAR P K ... RESPONDENT (By Smt SHREEDEVI K.B, ADVOCATE) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.51151/2016 ON THE FILE OF XIV A.C.M.M., BENGALURU FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 138 OF N.I. ACT.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER Heard learned counsel for petitioners, learned counsel for respondent and perused the records.
2. Petition is filed seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.51151/2016 pending on the file of XIV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Mayo Hall Unit, Bengaluru, for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (‘NI Act’ for short) for dishonour of the cheque for a sum of `7,58,35,593/-.
[ 3. Learned counsel for petitioners contends that the cheque in question was issued to respondent- complainant as security in terms of the agreement entered into with the complainant. Secondly, in view of breach of the terms of the said agreement, arbitration clause has been invoked by the complainant and arbitration proceedings are underway before the sole arbitrator in Arbitration Case No.RELIGARE/HL/LOT-3/JULY-14/RB:2911/07. Therefore, initiation of criminal action against the petitioners is illegal, untenable and abuse of process of the Court.
4. Both these contentions, in my view, cannot be accepted.
5. Firstly, petitioners have not produced any documents to show that the cheque in question was handed over to the respondent/complainant as security in terms of the agreement entered into between the complainant and the petitioners. In the absence of any such material, the said contention cannot be taken as a ground to quash the proceedings initiated against the petitioners.
6. Insofar as the second contention urged by the petitioners is concerned, a copy of the claim petition filed before the arbitrator discloses that the claimant/respondent has sought to adjudicate the liability of Rs.7,50,54,465/- due by the petitioners. Therefore, it cannot be said that as on the date of issuance of the alleged cheque, the liability was not due or payable by the petitioners. In the complaint, it is specifically averred that in respect of the dues to the complainant, accused No.2 issued the subject cheque, when presented for encashment was dishonoured. Accused No.1 is prosecuted in the capacity as a Company representative.
7. In that view of the matter, the complainant having made out a clear case for prosecution of the petitioners for the offence under Section 138 of N.I.Act, I do not find any justifiable ground to quash the proceedings. Consequently, the petition is dismissed.
Sd/- JUDGE cp*