IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.BAJANTHRI CRIMINAL PETITION No.6968 OF 2019 BETWEEN:
Janardhan V., Aged about 49 years, S/o R Venkateshappa, #54/2 Concorde Silicon Valley, Neeladri Road, Electronic City Phase-1, Bangalore-560 100.
Also at:
R/a No.10, Govindashetty Palya, Electronic City Post, Bangalore-560 100. …Petitioner (Sri. Diwakara.K., Advocate) AND M.Renukaswamy, S/o R Mallaiah, Aged about 46 years, R/at No.4, 1st Main, Madiwala, Bengaluru-560 068. …Respondent This criminal petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. praying to quash the entire proceedings and complaint in C.C.No.5756/2019 against the petitioner herein pending on the file of Hon’ble XIII ACMM, vide Annexure A and at Bengaluru for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I.Act.
This petition, coming on for admission, this day, the Court made the following:
O R D E R The petitioner has sought for the following reliefs:
“To quash the entire proceedings and complaint (PCR) in C.C.No.5756/2019 against the petitioner herein pending on the file of the Hon’ble XII ACMM at Bangalore vide Annexures A and B for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, in the interest of justice.”
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there was Joint Development Agreement among the parties dated 10.10.2013. Petitioner had issued a cheque for a sum of Rs.10,00,0000/- dated 19.11.2018 which was dishonoured. Consequently, complainant had initiated proceedings under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act (for short, ‘NI Act’). Such a proceeding is impermissible having regard to Clauses 15 and 17 mentioned in the Joint Development Agreement. The ingredients of Section 138 of NI Act is not attracted.
3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.
4. The undisputed facts are that parties have entered into Joint Development Agreement on 10.10.2013. The petitioner has not disputed in respect of issuance of cheque for an amount of Rs.10,00,000/- dated 19.11.2018 in the name of the respondent/complainant. Even though such transaction is with reference to Joint Development Agreement among the parties, ultimately what is required to be examined is whether cheque issued by the petitioner is dishonoured or not. Even assuming that issuance of cheque and its dishonour, the same would not fall under Clauses 15 and 17 of the Joint Development Agreement dated 10.10.2013. Dishonour of cheque would be entirely different from the Clauses in force in the Joint Development Agreement. Therefore, there is no infirmity in the complaint as well as further proceedings in the court below. The petitioner has not made out a case.
Petition stands dismissed.
Sd/- JUDGE cm/-