IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17th DAY OF JANUARY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA CRIMINAL PETITION No.2224/2014 BETWEEN:
1. K.M.Lokappa Gowda S/o. K.T.Maregowda Aged about 49 years Automobiles, Belur Road Mudigere Chikkamagaluru – 577 101.
2. K.K.Suresh S/o. Late K.K.Karigowda Aged about 40 years R/at. Kanachuru village Mudigere Taluk – 577 132.
3. Irwin Pinto S/o. Edward Pinto Aged about 38 years R/at. Chatra Midhana Mudigere – 577 132. …Petitioners (By Sri. Prasanna B.R., Advocate) AND:
K.V.Dwarakanatha Babu S/o. Late K.M.Badrachala Shetty Aged about 57 years R/at. B.H.Road Kadur – 581 396. ...Respondent (By Sri. Srikanth Patil. K., Advocate.) This Criminal petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. praying that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.921/13 on the file of the Civil Judge and JMFC, Kadur, by allowing this petition.
This Criminal petition coming on for Admission, this day, the Court made the following:
O R D E R The petitioners have sought to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.921/2013 pending on the file of the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Kadur.
2. The respondent filed a complaint against the petitioner No.1 under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. In the said proceedings, the respondent produced an agreement – Ex.D.1. The petitioner disputed the authenticity of the said agreement. The said agreement was sent for examination by handwriting expert. On receiving the report to the effect that the signature thereon is not that of the petitioner herein, the respondent filed a private complaint seeking action against the petitioners for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 465, 468, 471 read with 34 of IPC. On recording the sworn statement, the learned Magistrate took cognizance of the above offences and issued summons to the petitioners. At that stage, the petitioners have approached this Court seeking to quash the above proceedings.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that PCR No.42/2010, in which petitioner No.1 had produced the disputed agreement, has ended in the conviction of petitioner No.1, but the said order is challenged in Crl.R.P.No.366/2016 and the same is pending consideration of this Court. Under the said circumstances, initiation of criminal proceedings against the petitioners for the alleged offences is premature and hence seeks to quash the said proceedings.
4. Having considered the submissions, in my view, until the final decision in Crl.R.P.366/2016, it is premature to contend that the petitioners have resorted to forgery of the above agreement solely on the basis of the report of the hand writing expert which is under consideration of this Court in Crl.R.P. No. 366/2016. Under the said circumstances, the matter having been seized by the revisional Court, in my view, it is just and necessary to keep the further proceedings in abeyance until the issue is finally determined by this Court.
Accordingly, the petition is allowed.
The proceedings initiated against the petitioners in C.C.No. 921/2013 are quashed. The respondent is reserved liberty to file a fresh complaint against the petitioners for the alleged offences on the same cause of action, after the decision in Crl.R.P. No.366/2016.
Sd/- JUDGE Mgn/-