IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF JANUARY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO.9660/2018 BETWEEN:
SMT. JAYAMMA W/O. RANGASWAMY AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, R/AT NO.22, 4TH MAIN, 9TH CROSS, AGRAHARA DASARAHALLI, BENGALURU-560 079 ... PETITIONER (BY SRI.SANTHOSH KUMAR M.B., ADVOCATE) AND:
SMT. H.S.LAKSHMAMMA W/O.SHIVASHANKARA MURTHY AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, R/AT NO.40, 4TH MAIN, 7TH CROSS, AGRAHARA DASARAHALLI, BENGALURU-560 079 ... RESPONDENT THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER 482 CR.P.C. PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 17.12.2018 PASSED BY THE LXIX ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE (CCH-70) AT BANGALORE IN CRL.RP NO.725/2018 VIDE ANNEXURE-F AND ALLOW THE APPLICATION DATED 29.08.2018 FILED U/S 311 OF CRPC R/W SEC.243 OF CRPC.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R Heard Sri.Santhos Kumar M.B, learned counsel appearing for petitioner. Perused the records.
2. Respondent herein has filed a complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C. r/w Sections 138 and 142 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, alleging that towards a discharge of debt petitioner herein had issued a cheque for a sum of `2,00,000/- and same has been returned unpaid for want of sufficient of funds.
3. On 313 statement of accused came to be recorded, an application under Section 311 came to be filed by petitioner-accused to reopen the case from the stage of examination of Branch Manager of State Bank of India, Magadi Branch, to prove that signature found in Ex.P-2 is not the signature of the accused. Said contention has not been accepted and rightly so, by the learned trial Judge, inasmuch as, neither in the reply notice, which was issued by accused/petitioner there is denial of signature on the disputed cheque. Further, accused himself has suggested to P.W.1 in the cross- examination that cheque in question Ex.P.2 had been signed by the accused and a blank cheque was given by the accused as a security towards chit transaction. This itself would indicate that signature found on the disputed cheque is as that of accused/petitioner and as such, trial Court has rightly rejected the application. This Court finds no good ground to entertain this petition, as such petition stands rejected.
In view of petition having been rejected, I.A.No.1/2018 for stay does not survive for consideration and same stands rejected.
SD/- JUDGE DR