rIN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE P.S. DINESH KUMAR CRIMINAL PETITION No.8987 OF 2018 BETWEEN:
SRI. RUDRAYYA AMMINABHAVIMATH S/O SRI GURUPADAYYA AMMINABHAVIMATH AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS R/O RANGANATHA NAGARA RANEBENNUR HAVERI DISTRICT-581115 ... PETITIONER (BY SHRI M V HIREMATH, ADVOCATE) AND SRI. SATISH SHETTY S/O SRI SUNDAR SHETTY AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, C/O SRI RAME GOWDA, R/O GOWRI NILAYA, NEAR CHURCH,NGANDHI NAGARA BHADRAVATHI SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT-577 301 ... RESPONDENT THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C IS PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 03.02.2018 PASSED BY THE II ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, BHADRAVATHI IN PCR.NO.431/2017 (C.C.NO.256/2018) AS PER ANNEXURE-A.
THIS CRL.P COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER Heard.
2. Petitioner is accused of offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, pursuant to dishonour of a cheque alleged to have been given to the respondent-complainant which is subject matter of proceedings in PCR No.431/2017.
2. Shri M.V.Hiremath, learned advocate for the petitioner submits that the cheque in question along with other papers were taken away by the complainant-respondent from petitioner’s car. He got issued a legal notice calling upon the complainant to return the cheque on 12.10.2017. Immediately thereafter, complainant got the cheque in question presented for realisation. Upon its dishonour, he initiated proceedings by filing the instant private complaint.
3. Learned Advocate for the petitioner further submits that when the petitioner has sought return of the cheque, the respondent with a mala fide intention, got the cheque deposited in the bank for realisation. In substance, the case of the petitioner is that he is not liable to pay any money and complainant has got possession of the cheque in an illegal manner.
4. I have carefully considered the submission of learned advocate for the petitioner and perused the records.
5. Admittedly, after dishonour of the cheque, the complainant has issued a legal notice. Petitioner has replied stating that he was not liable to pay any money and called upon the complainant to return the cheque. Thus, the parties have contentious issues and to examine the veracity of their claims, trial is necessary. In the circumstances, I find no ground to interfere under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
6. Resultantly, this Petition fails and it is accordingly dismissed. No costs.
Sd/- JUDGE Yn.