IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF AUGUST 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE P.S.DINESH KUMAR CRIMINAL PETITION No.4594 OF 2019 BETWEEN:
MR.SHUNNU SAB @ SUNNU SAB, S/O PYARU SAB, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, RESIDENT OF HORPETE, CHITHRADURGA – 577 501.
…PETITIONER (BY SHRI.M.S.VENUGOPAL, ADVOCATE) AND:
Mr.B.H.GOWDRU S/O C.K.BHEEMANNA, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, RESIDING NEAR BESCOM OFFICE, HOLALKERE ROAD, CHITHRADURGA – 577 501.
… RESPONDENT THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE, 1973, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER IN CRL.R.P.No.23/2018 DATED 22.11.2018 PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, CHITRADURGA AND ORDER DATED 16.12.2017 PASSED BY THE I ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC., CHITRADURGA IN C.C.No.1416/2017 BY ALLOWING THIS PETITION.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER The accused before the trial Court in proceedings initiated by the respondent – complainant under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, pursuant to dishonour of a cheque issued by him has challenged order dated 22.11.2018 passed by the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Chitradurga, in Criminal Revision Petition No.23/2018 dismissing the petition and upholding the order dated 16.10.2017 passed by the learned I Additional Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate First Class, Chitradurga, in C.C. No.1416/2017 issuing process against the accused.
2. Shri M.S. Venugopal, learned advocate for the petitioner, urged a solitary contention that the petitioner is not liable to pay the amount described in the cheque as the same was given to the respondent as surety for the collateral purpose. He has taken exception to the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge. He submitted that the learned Sessions Judge has recorded a finding that the revision petition was not maintainable. Having so recorded, learned Sessions Judge has proceeded further and observed as follows in paragraph No.17 of the impugned order.
. “Whether the cheque has been issued so as to discharge loan liability or not, is yet to be decide by the trial court. Under the circumstances, the contention taken by the advocate for the revision petitioner is not tenable.” (sic) 3. In substance, the grievance of the petitioner is that the cheque was rendered to the respondent for a collateral purpose and there is no legally enforceable debt. It may be a plausible defence for the petitioner and the same can be decided after trial. The Magistrate at the stage of taking cognizance of the offence and issuing process cannot decide the said aspect.
4. Resultantly, this petition fails and is accordingly, dismissed.
5. In view of dismissal of the petition, I.A.No.1/2019 does not survive for consideration and the same stands disposed of.
No costs.
Sd/- JUDGE sma