IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF JANUARY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA CRIMINAL PETITION NO.1962/2016 BETWEEN 1. MR. PRAVEEN PADIVAL, S/O LATE GUNAPAL HEGDE, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, R/AT KALMARODI HOUSE, KUKKEDI VILLAGE, BELTHANGADY TALUK DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT, KARNATAKA-57 2. MR.RATHNARAJ PADIWAL, S/O BHUJABALI PADIVAL AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, R/AT 31-RAMYA NILAYA, 4TH CROSS, 2ND MAIN, NEAR AGU MEDICALS, YASHAVANTHAPURA, BENGALURU-560021 ... PETITIONERS (BY SRI. NATARAJA BALLAL, ADV.) AND 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY SHO, VENOOR PS, (CRIME NO.0112/2015) REPRESENTED BY:
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDING, BANGALORE-560 001.
2. MR. CHANDRAPRABHA JAIN S/O YUVARAJA CHAWTA, AGED 31 YEARS, R/AT BARAMELU HOUSE, NITTADE VILLAGE, BELTHANGADY-574214 ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. I.S.PRAMOD CHANDRA, SPP-II FOR R1, SMT. GAYATHRI BHAT H, ADV. FOR SRI P.P.HEGDE, ADV. FOR R2.) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUSH THE FIR REGISTERED AGAINST THE PETITIONERS FOR THE ALLEGED OFFENCES P/U/S 420,465,468 R/W 34 OF IPC IN CR.NO.112/2015 OF VENOOR P.S., DATED 20.11.2015.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER When this matter is taken up for hearing, the learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 submits that the dispute between the parties is amicably settled, and therefore, he has no objection to allow the petition and quash the FIR registered against the petitioners.
2. The submission of the learned counsel is placed on record.
3. On going through the allegations made in the private complaint filed by the 2nd respondent, it is noticed that cheque issued by the 2nd respondent having got dishonoured, there was exchange of notices between the parties and at that stage, the impugned FIR came to be lodged alleging that the petitioners herein have forged and manipulated the said cheque. The allegations made against the petitioners appear to be a counter blast to the legal notice issued by the petitioner No.2 for the dishonour of the cheque issued by the 2nd respondent. The dispute between the parties is arising on account of the dishonour of the cheque and not on account of the alleged forgery. Hence, accepting the submission made by the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent, the petition is allowed.
The FIR registered against the petitioners in FIR No.0112/2015 and all consequent proceedings thereto for the offence punishable under Section 420, 465, 468 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code is quashed.
Sd/- JUDGE Chs* CT-HR