IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 09TH DAY OF JULY 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA CRIMINAL PETITION NO.5589 OF 2013 BETWEEN:
1. SRI K SHANKAR NARAYAN BHAT S/O GOPALKRISHNA BHAT AGE: 42 YEARS R/AT UDAYA NILAYA, PANJIGUDDE, PADNUR POST PUTTUR TALUK DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT-574201.
2. SRI. KESHAVA KRISHNA P.S. S/O NARAYAN BHAT AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS R/AT SOORAMBAIL HOUSE, LAXMI NAGAR, UPPINANGADY, PUTTUR-TALUK DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT-574201.
... PETITIONERS (BY SRI: ARUNA SHYAM M, ADVOCATE) AND 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH CIRCLE INSPECTOR PUTTUR RURAL CIRCLE, UPPINANGADY P.S. PUTTUR TALUK DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT REP BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDING, BANGALORE-01 2. SRI. RAJAGOPAL BHAT S/O K.P. SUBRAYA BHAT AGED 47 YEARS R/AT KAILAR STORES BANK ROAD, UPPINANGADY, PUTTUR TALUK DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT-574201.
... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI: VIJAYAKUMAR MAJAGE, ADDL. SPP FOR R1; SMT: HALEEMA AMMEN, ADVOCATE FOR SRI: S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY, ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DT.22.7.13 IN PCR NO.18/13 PASSED BY THE ADDL.
C.J. & JMFC., PUTTUR D.K. AND ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS PURSUANT THERETO AND FIR IN CR.NO.127/13 REGISTERED BY THE UPPINANGADI P.S., AND COMPLAINT.
THIS CRL.P COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
O R D E R Petitioners are aggrieved by the initiation of the proceedings against them in PCR No.18/2013 on the file of the Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Puttur, D.K. for the alleged offences punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act 2. Heard learned counsel for petitioners, learned Additional SPP for respondent No.1-State and learned counsel for respondent No.2.
3. Perused the records.
4. Learned counsel for petitioners submits that the impugned proceedings are a counter blast to the complaint filed by the petitioners against the second respondent in C.C.No.22/2011 for dishounour of cheque issued by respondent No.2 in favour of the second petitioner. The second respondent has been contesting the said proceedings since the year 2011 but the instant complaint is filed by him in the year 2013 after an inordinate delay of more than three years which itself speaks of the malafide intention of the second respondent to create defence in the prosecution instituted by the petitioners against him.
5. Refuting the submissions, learned counsel for the respondent No.2 submits that the second petitioner was the erstwhile partner with respondent No.2 who fell apart and misused the cheque leaves of respondent No.2 and in that regard, as back as on 2.7.2009 and 4.9.2009, second respondent has intimated the loss of cheques to the Bank and had instructed his banker not to honour the cheques and based on the said intimation, even the account maintained by the second respondent in Syndicate Bank, Uppinangady was closed. In the said circumstance, there was prima facie material to show that the cheques in question were misused thereby making out the ingredients of the offences under Sections 426, 465, 467 r/w.34 of Indian Penal Code.
4. Having regard to the above facts and as the matter being under investigation, I do not find any justifiable reason to interfere in the matter at this stage. Documents produced by the second respondent along with the complaint indicate that a memo was issued to the Bank Manager, Uppinangady, on 2.7.2009 which was followed by another memo dated 4.9.2009 which indicate that the second respondent had taken steps to close the account. In the said circumstances, the matter requires investigation and hence, this is not a fit case to quash the proceedings under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.
Accordingly, the petition is dismissed. However, liberty is reserved to the petitioners to produce relevant documents in their possession before the investigating officer and the same shall be considered by the investigating officer while forming an final opinion regarding the dispute in question.
Since the main petition has been dismissed, I.A.1/2018 does not survive for consideration and the same is accordingly, dismissed.
Sd/- JUDGE rs