IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE P.S. DINESH KUMAR CRIMINAL PETITION No.3875 OF 2019 BETWEEN:
SRI NAGENDRA PATHAK PROP:D.G.CARGO OCCUPATION:TRANSPORT AGENT OFFICE NO.3, SAHARA INDIA BUILDING KRISHNA PARK, RAHUL PARK NEAR JESAL PARK, BHAYANDAR (EAST) THANE, MUMBAI ALSO AT:19-20, SAINIK ENCLAVE SAINIK VIHAR, SECTOR-5-V-F UTTAM NAGAR, DELHI – 110 059 ALSO AT:OFFICE NO.19-20 SAINIK ENCLAVE, MOHAN GARDEN LAKSHMI NARAYAN MANDIR ROAD NEAR AUILYA MASZID UTTAM NAGAR, DELHI – 110 059 … PETITIONER (BY SHRI S.ANIL KUMAR, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY SUB-INSPECTOR OLD TOWN POLICE, BHADRAVATHI – 577 301 S.P.P. HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BANGALORE – 560 001 2. SRI GANESH MANAGING IN CHARGE MALLIKARJUNA TRANSPORT II CROSS, BH ROAD BHADRAVATHI – 577 301 3. SRI RAJU NAIK FATHER NAME NOT KNOWN OCCUPATION: TRANSPORTER C/O LOK PRAKASHAN LTD.
GUJARATH SAMACHAR, A-1337/340 SHAH & NAHAR INDUSTRIAL ESTATE LOWER PAREL (WEST) BOMBAY – 400 013 ... RESPONDENTS (BY SHRI NASRULLA KHAN, HCGP) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE PETITIONER IN C.C.NO.3426/2011 THE PASSED BY THE II ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE, JMFC COURT AT BHADRAVATHI AND ETC.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER Petitioner has taken exception to initiation of criminal proceedings in C.C.No.3426/2011 in the Trial Court.
2. Respondent No.2 filed a private complaint under Section 200 of Cr.P.C., contending inter alia that he had arranged five trucks to transport Newsprint Paper as requested by the petitioner. After the consignment was delivered, the drivers demanded the payment. Petitioner tendered eight cheques and all the cheques stood dishonoured. Accordingly, respondent No.2 has initiated criminal proceedings by filing private complaint. After investigation, police filed ‘B’ Report. Learned Magistrate has rejected ‘B’ Report and recorded the sworn statement of the complainant and issued process by order dated 04.10.2011.
3. Shri S.Anil Kumar, learned advocate for the petitioner contended that petitioner is aged 65 years and keeps indifferent health. He has not issued the cheques but his Manager, who manages Bombay Branch Office has issued the cheques. Accordingly, he prayed for allowing this petition.
4. Shri Nasrulla Khan, learned HCGP argued opposing the petition.
5. I have carefully considered rival submissions and perused the records.
6. As per paragraph No.3 of the complaint, the specific case of the complainant is that petitioner has issued eight cheques and they have been dishonoured by the petitioner’s Banker.
7. Learned Magistrate has recorded that accused had tendered eight cheques. He has further recorded that there exists a prima facie case to proceed against the accused. The principle ground urged before this Court on behalf of petitioner is that cheques were not issued by him. The same can be decided only after trial. No finding can be recorded with regard to the said contention by exercising power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. Resultantly, this petition fails and it is accordingly dismissed.
No costs.
Sd/- JUDGE AV