IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF AUGUST 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE P.S.DINESH KUMAR CRIMINAL PETITION No.2032 OF 2019 BETWEEN:
M.TANWIR AHMED, S/O LATE K.S.MAQBOOL AHMED, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, R/AT BEHIND DODDA MASIDI, LALBANDH BEEDI, HUNASUR TOWN – 571 105, MYSURU DISTRICT.
…PETITIONER (BY SHRI.K.SHASHIKANTH PRASAD, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY HUNASUR TOWN POLICE STATION, MYSURU DISTRICT. HUNASUR – 571 105. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU.
2. SHAHABUDDIN KHAN, S/O LATE SIRAJUDDIN KHAN, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, R/AT #1623, MUSLIM BLOCK, HUNASUR CITY – 571 105, MYSURU DISTRICT.
… RESPONDENTS (BY SHRI.NASRULLA KHAN, HIGH COURT GOVERNMENT PLEADER FOR RESPONDENT No.1) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE, 1973, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE LEARNED PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE (SR.DN.) AND CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, MYSURU, IN C.C.No.35/2018 (CR.No.143/2017).
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER Heard Shri K. Shashikanth Prasad, learned advocate for the petitioner and learned High Court Government Pleader for the State.
2. It is submitted by the learned advocate for the petitioner that the petitioner has initiated criminal proceedings against the second respondent under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short “the NI Act”), in respect of a dishonoured cheque issued by him and the said proceedings is registered in C.C. No.39/2015 on the file of Senior Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate First Class, Hunsur, 3. As a counterblast, second respondent has registered F.I.R. No.143/2017 in Hunsur Town Police Station, Mysuru District, on 16.05.2017 against the petitioner alleging commission of offence under the Karnataka Money Lenders Act, 1961. After investigation, Police have filed charge sheet against the petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 5 and 38 of the Karnataka Money Lenders Act, 1961 and Sections 3 and 4 of the Karnataka Prohibition of Charging Exorbitant Interest Act, 2004. Feeling aggrieved by the charge sheet, the petitioner has presented this petition.
4. Shri K. Shashikanth Prasad, learned advocate for the petitioner, submitted that second respondent has initiated criminal proceedings as counterblast to the proceedings under Section 138 of the N.I. Act, 1881, initiated by the petitioner and he urged two grounds in support of this petition. Firstly, that second respondent has initiated criminal proceedings against the petitioner as counterblast and secondly, that the second respondent has filed the instant F.I.R. after a lapse of three years. Therefore, the entire proceedings initiated against the petitioner amount to abuse of process of law. Accordingly, he prayed for allowing this petition.
5. Learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1 – State opposing the petition argued that both proceedings are distinct and independent. The complainant in this case has stated in his complaint that he had handed over three cheques and a blank pronote to the petitioner. He further stated that he has repaid the entire amount of Rs.1,00,000/- together with interest to the petitioner. However, the petitioner has refused to return the cheques and threatened the complainant with dire consequences. It is also averred in the complaint that the petitioner collects huge interest from the innocent citizens and accordingly, he prayed for taking action against him. Police after investigation have filed charge sheet against the petitioner for violation of the provisions of the Karnataka Money Lenders Act, 1961, and the Karnataka Prohibition of Charging Exorbitant Interest Act, 2004. Accordingly, he prayed for dismissing the petition.
6. I have carefully considered rival contentions urged by the learned advocates and perused the records.
7. The details of proceedings initiated by the petitioner under Section 138 of the N.I. Act, are not placed for perusal of this Court. It is only by way of an oral submission made by the learned Advocate for the petitioner, it is asserted that the present proceedings have been initiated by the second respondent as afterthought and as counterblast to the proceedings initiated by the petitioner against the second respondent under Section 138 of the N.I. Act.
8. In the complaint, the second respondent has alleged that he had taken Rs.1,00,000/- as loan from the petitioner and issued three cheques and one blank pronote. It is further stated that the petitioner is in the habit of collecting huge interests from innocent citizens. Police after investigation, have filed charge sheet against the petitioner for violation of provisions of the Karnataka Money Lenders Act, 1961, and the Karnataka Prohibition of Charging Exorbitant Interest Act, 2004. The plea of innocence that the instant proceedings are filed as counterblast to the petitioner’s filing complaint against the second respondent under Section 138 of the N.I. Act are all matters, which can be decided only after trial. No finding can be recorded based on the claims made by the petitioner in a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
9. Resultantly, the petition fails and it is accordingly, dismissed.
10. In view of dismissal of the petition, I.A.No.1/2019 does not survive for consideration and the same is also dismissed.
No costs.
Sd/- JUDGE sma