IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE P.S. DINESH KUMAR CRIMINAL PETITION No.7521 OF 2013 BETWEEN:
1. M/S. GARUDARI ENTERPRISES NO.9-134, SEETHAPURAM MIRYLAGUDA-508 207 NALAKONDA DISTRICT ANDHRA PRADESH REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR SRI. SRINIVASULU 2. MR. SRINIVASALU PROPRIETOR GARUDARI ENTERPRISES NO.9-134, SEETHAPURAM MIRYLAGUDA-508 207 NALAKONDA DISTRICT ANDHRA PRADESH … PETITIONERS (BY SHRI C.R. RAGHAVENDRA REDDY, ADVOCATE) AND:
M/S. PEPS INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD HEAD OFFICE AT V-1D NGEF INDUSTRIAL ESTATE MAHADEVAPURA BANGALORE-560 048 THROUGH ITS AUTHORISED SIGNATORY SRI. SUDHAKARA ... RESPONDENT (BY SMT. SUNITA SRINIVAS, ADVOCATE) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDIGNS PENDING IN C.C.NO.50128/2013 ON THE FILE OF XIV ACMM, BANGALORE, UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 138 OF N.I. ACT.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER Heard Shri C.R. Raghavendra Reddy, learned advocate for the petitioners and Smt. Sunita Srinivas, learned advocate for the respondent.
2. Petitioner No.2 is proprietor of M/s. Garudari Enterprises (petitioner No.1). M/s. Garudari Enterprises and M/s. Peps Industries Pvt. Ltd., (respondent) entered into a Trade Agreement in terms of which respondent agreed to supply mattresses to petitioner No.2. Petitioners tendered a blank cheque towards security. Respondent banked the said cheque and upon its dishonour, initiated the proceedings under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, and the same are pending before XIV ACMM, Bengaluru, in C.C.No.50128/2013. Petitioners have challenged the said criminal proceedings in this petition.
3. Shri Reddy, learned advocate for the petitioners arguing in support of the petition, contended that the cheque in dispute was tendered as “security” for the year 2010-2011. However, respondent has presented the same for clearance on 07.06.2012 by filling up the cheque for Rs.14,50,227/-. Since, the understanding between the parties was that the cheque is to be kept as “security”, for the period 2010-2011, the respondent ought not to have banked it in the year 2012. Therefore, the proceedings are bad in law.
4. Smt. Sunita Srinivas, learned advocate for the respondent, contended that the petitioners had a running account with the respondent. Respondent is manufacturer and petitioner No.1 is a distributor. The material is sent based on the black cheque given as trade deposit by petitioner No.1. As on 07.06.2012, since petitioner No.1 was due a sum of Rs.14,50,227/-, the cheque was presented and the same was dishonoured by the petitioners’ banker. It is further submitted that respondent, as holder of the cheque shall have authority to fill up the negotiable instrument. She placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court of India in Bir Singh Vs. Mukesh Kumar1 in support of her contention.
5. The principal contention of the petitioners is that the cheque was issued as security for the year 2010-2011.
1 2019 SCC OnLine SC 138 Therefore, it could not have been transacted in the year 2012.
6. I am of the view that the said contention is too fragile to countenance. It is trite that once the cheque is tendered, the holder of the cheque will have the authority to fill up the cheque.
7. In Bir Singh’s case (supra), it is held that;
“38. If a signed blank cheque is voluntarily presented to a payee towards some payment, the payee may fill up amount and other particulars. This in itself would not invalidate the cheque. The onus would still be on the accused to prove that the cheque was not in discharge of a debt or liability by adducing evidence.”
8. In the circumstances, the solitary ground urged on behalf of the petitioners that cheque was issued as “security” fails. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed.
No costs.
Sd/- JUDGE AV