IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE G.NARENDAR CRL.P. NO.2402/2019 BETWEEN 1. SMT N SUDHA W/O H.C.NAGARAJA MURTHY, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, R/AT NO.46, 3RD CROSS, BRINDAVAN LAYOUT, HORAMAVU, BENGALURU-560113.
2. SRI.NAGARAJA MURTHY S/O LATE H.B.CHANNACHAR, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, WORKING AS POSTMAN, H.A.L. 2ND STAGE POST OFFICE, BENGALURU-560 008.
...PETITIONERS (BY SRI RAJANNA, ADV.) AND SMT NAMRATHA NARAYAN W/O MADHU ARAVIND AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, R/AT NO.25, HORAMAVU MAIN ROAD, SIR M.V.NAGARA, RAMAMURTHY NAGAR, BENGALURU-560 016 REP. BY HER FATHER AND SPA HOLDER SRI. REP. BY HER FATHER AND SPA HOLDER SRI. NARAYANA GANGE, S/O LATE G.M.SHETTY, AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS.
…RESPONDENT (BY SRI B.C.SEETHARAMA RAO, ADV.) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE COMPLAINT IN PCR.NO.50338/2018 IN C.C.NO.52371/2018 FILED BY THE RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT AGAINST THE PETITIONERS/ACCUSED U/S 138 OF N.I ACT ON THE FILE OF THE LVIII A.C.M.M., BANGALORE.
THIS CRL.P COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the respondent.
2. Petitioners are before this court being aggrieved by the proceedings pending on the file of the 58 ACMM, Bangalore and issuance of summons in C.C. No.52371/2018 and pray for quashing of the same. The only ground canvassed by the petitioner is that the second petitioner is not a signatory to the cheques and hence the proceedings against the second petitioner under Section 138 of N.I. Act are bad in law.
3. A perusal of the complaint clearly demonstrates that certain allegations are leveled by the complainant, as against the petitioner alleging the commission of certain offences, if found guilty of which, are punishable under Section 417, 418 & 420 of IPC. The complainant has clearly accused both the petitioners of having conspired to cheat her and that in furtherance of the same, he had promised to sell certain property and that the second accused had also received a sum of Rs.10.00 lakhs as consideration to bring about the deal and it is further alleged that the complainant paid one G. Anand, Anand Kumar and Raghavendra N, a total sum of Rs.49,36,800/- solely on the instructions of the accused. That subsequently the cheques issued by the accused for repayment and to avoid legal action, came to be dishonoured. In the light of the said facts set out above, the claim of the petitioners that no ground is made-out against the petitioners is without basis. The said factual aspects require to be appreciated by the trial court after a full fledged trial.
4. Accordingly, the petition stands dismissed.
5. In view of disposal of the petition, I.A. 2/2019 for vacating stay does not survive for consideration and is accordingly disposed off.
Sd/- JUDGE Chs*