IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF MAY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA CRL.P. NO. 1162/2016 BETWEEN C. S. RAVI KUMAR S/O. SRI. SHIVA KUMAR AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS R/AT CHUNCHANGUPPE VILLAGE AND POST TAVAREKERE HOBLI BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK BANGALORE-562 130 ... PETITIONER (BY SRI. A. RAMESH GOWDA, ADV.) AND KARNATAKA STATE GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES HOUSING CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY REP. BY ITS PRESIDENT SRI. RAJAGOPALACHAR S/O ANJANIAPPA., AGE 46 YEARS R/A AMARAVATHI LAYOUT BANGARPET TOWN ... RESPONDENT (BY SRI. VEERANNA G. TIGADI, ADV.) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.285/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT KOLAR.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER Petitioner is prosecuted for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (hereinafter referred to as ‘N.I. Act’). He has sought to quash the said proceedings by raising two fold contentions. Firstly, it is contended that, though the memo of dishonour of the cheque is dated 19.07.2013, the notice was issued to the petitioner only on 19.08.2013 ie., beyond 30 days prescribed under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. Secondly, the cheque in question was not issued on the account maintained by the petitioner. Therefore, the prosecution of the petitioner on the purported allegations is illegal and abuse of the process of law.
2. Both the grounds, urged by the petitioner in my view, are not tenable. In so far as the first contention is concerned, though the memo of dishonour bears the date-19.07.2013, there is no material to show as to when the said memo was delivered or communicated to the respondent. Even otherwise, the date of service, is a question of fact, which could be decided only during trial. The respondent has clearly averred in the complaint that, the intimation of dishonour was communicated to him only on 31.07.2013. In the light of this factual position, the first contention is rejected.
3. Coming to the second contention, the document relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner at Annexure-M cannot be co-related to the cheque in question. The cheque does not bear the account number. Annexure-M dated 27.01.2016, which is the letter of Vijaya Bank, Kolar Branch, does not refer to the cheque in question. It merely states that, Sri. C.S. Ravi Kumar, S/o. Shiva Kumar, does not maintain any account in their branch. It further states that, M/s. Orange Properties is represented by its Partner Mr. V. Ravi, S/o. Venkatappa and Mr. Chidananda D.R., S/o. Rajashekar. The allegations against the petitioner is that, the cheque in question was signed and issued by him. In the wake the above facts, at this juncture, it cannot be held that, the petitioner is wrongly prosecuted before the trial Court. Hence, both the contentions are rejected. Consequently, the petition is dismissed.
It is made clear that, any observation made in this order shall not influence the trial Court while dealing with the matter.
The parties are at liberty to produce necessary materials in support of their contentions, irrespective of the observation made in this order.
Sd/-
JUDGE KGR*