IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27th DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR CRIMINAL PETITION No.10121 of 2017 BETWEEN:
Sri. J. Rangappa S/o late Jetty and late Siddamma, Aged about 57 years, Working in:
Karnataka Legislative Assembly Secretariat, Post Box No.5074, 1st Floor, Vidhana Soudha, Bengaluru – 560 001. …. Petitioner (By Sri. Raghunath Jadhav .A, Advocate) AND:
Sri. L. Narasimha Murthy S/o Sri. Linganna, Aged about 58 years, Residing at No.933, Post Office Road, Attibele, Anekal Taluk, Bengaluru Rural District – 560 102. … Respondent This Criminal petition is filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure praying to quash the order dated 19.08.2015 which the proceedings initiated against the petitioner under Section 138 and 142 of Negotiable Instrument Act in PCR No.9637/2015 now it is registered as C.C. No.20401/2015 pending on the file of Hon’ble XV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Bengaluru under Annexure-B and F to the petition.
This petition coming on for Admission, this day, the Court made the following:
ORDER Petitioner, who is arrayed as accused in C.C. No.20401/2015 is seeking for quashing of said proceedings.
2. Perusal of records would disclose that respondent herein has filed a complaint under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. read with Sections 138 and 142 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 alleging thereunder that respondent has borrowed a sum of Rs.6.00 lakhs during the year 2014 and for discharge of said debt, cheque came to be issued and on its presentation, same was returned for want of sufficient funds. It is further alleged that statutory notice also came to be issued raising a demand to re-pay the amount, which is duly served and accused has not complied with the demand made in the notice and hence, alleging that accused has committed an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, petitioner is before this Court.
3. The defense which the petitioner/accused intends to raise, namely, that there being no legally enforceable debt petitioner is seeking for quashing of said proceedings. Since this is an issue by way of defense, it will have to be established by the petitioner/accused during trial. Hence, question of entertaining the said plea for quashing proceedings does not arise.
No grounds, criminal petition is dismissed.
In view of dismissal of main petition, I.A.No.1/2017 for stay does not survive for consideration and it stands rejected.
Sd/- JUDGE MBM