IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF JULY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE P.S.DINESH KUMAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO.1926 OF 2019 BETWEEN:
SHRI R.KUMAR AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, S/O E.RAMAN NO.191, 5TH CROSS, NEAR HEMANTH MEDICALS, MAGADI ROAD, BANGALORE-560 023.
…PETITIONER (BY SHRI RISHI PAL SINGH VARMA, ADVOCATE) AND:
SHRI H.V.MALESH REDDY S/O LATE VENKATAREDDY, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, R/AT NO.7, THIMA REDDY LAYOUT, NEAR GOV. SCHOOL, A.NARAYANAPURA, BANGALORE-560 016.
… RESPONDENT THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF COGNIZANCE OF OFFICE IS TAKEN UNDER COMPLAINT FILED BY THE RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT U/S 200 OF CR.P.C. ALONG WITH SECTION 138 OF N.I. ACT AGAINST THE PETITIONER U/S 204 OF CR.P.C. ON 28.11.2017 ON THE FILE OF LVIII ADDL.C.M.M., BENGALURU IN C.C.NO.60189/2017 AND ACQUIT THE PETITIONER/ACCUSED FROM THE CHARGES AGAINST HIM U/S 138 OF N.I. ACT.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER Petitioner has challenged order dated 28.11.2017 passed by LVIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore, taking cognizance of offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”).
2. Shri Rishi Pal Singh Varma, learned advocate for the petitioner urged following grounds:
► that when the complainant was cross- examined by the learned advocate for the petitioner with regard to currency notes, the complainant has stated that he had paid the amount by cash;
► that entire transaction is fabricated to suit the complainant’s story; and ► that the contents of the cheque have not been written by the accused.
3. With the above submissions, learned advocate for the petitioner urged that entire criminal proceedings initiated against the accused amount to abuse of process of law.
4. It is relevant to note that the petitioner has challenged the order dated 28.11.2017 where under the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of offence by recording thus.
“Cognizance is taken. Office to register as PCR and Criminal Case U/S 204 of Cr.P.C issue summons to accused for the offence punishable U/S 138 of NI Act. Issue summons to accused through court and through RPAD. Call on 13.02.2018 .
Sd/-
LVIII ACMM, Bangalore”.
5. I have carefully perused the complaint also.
6. The complaint contains averments with regard to dishonour of cheque for insufficient funds, issuance of legal notice and non-payment of amount by the accused after receipt of legal notice.
7. Before taking cognizance, the learned Magistrate is expected to examine the complaint and the documents, if any, annexed thereto. In this case, complainant has annexed a copy of the memo issued by the Bank intimating dishonour of cheque and a copy of the legal notice.
8. It is recorded by the learned Magistrate that after perusal of the complaint, cognizance of offence has been taken. Thus, the grounds urged in support of this petition recorded hereinabove do not show as to how the order taking cognizance is bad in law.
9. In the circumstances, no exception can be taken to the order passed by the learned Magistrate.
Resultantly, petition fails and it is accordingly dismissed.
In view of dismissal of the petition, I.A.No.1/2019 does not survive for consideration and the same is disposed of.
No costs.
Sd/- JUDGE PB