IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF APRIL, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO.187 OF 2019 BETWEEN:
SRI. SRINIVAS M SANNIDHI S/O. HOODI MUNIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS NO.83/106, 1ST MAIN, 4TH CROSS, NEAR MADAGADAMMA TEMPLE, KUNDALAHALLI, BENGALURU – 560 037 ... PETITIONER (BY SRI. C. VIJAYA KUMAR, ADV.) AND:
M/S. TATA CAPITAL FINANCIAL SERVICES LIMITED [EARLIER KNOWN AS M/S. TATA CAPITAL LIMITED] HAVING ITS REGIONAL OFFICE AT REGENT SUNNYSIDE NO.581, GROUND FLOOR, 80 FEET ROAD, 8TH BLOCK, KORAMANGALA, BENGALURU – 560 095 REP. BY ITS LEGAL OFFICER AJAY KUMAR K.B. … RESPONDENT THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.PC. PRAYING TO QUASH THE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C. NO.20391/2018, ON THE FILE OF THE 27TH A.C.M.M., AT BANGALORE, BY ALLOWING THE CRIMINAL PETITION.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R Heard Sri. C. Vijaya Kumar, learned counsel appearing for petitioner extensively. Perused records.
2. Petitioner is accused in C.C. No.20391/2018, which proceedings have been initiated by respondent against petitioner alleging that cheque issued for discharge of debt as agreed to under compromise petition, when presented through its banker, has been dishonoured and thereby petitioner has committed an offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1888.
3. Learned trial Judge having taken cognizance of the offence had issued summons to petitioner and as such proceedings pending before trial Court against petitioner is under challenge.
4. It is contention of Sri. C. Vijaya Kumar, learned counsel appearing for petitioner that alleged cheque issued by petitioner-accused is for payment of amount agreed to be paid under settlement and it would not partake character of ‘legally enforceable debt’. As to whether alleged debt is legally enforceable debt or otherwise, is a matter of evidence which will have to be decided by the trial Court. There is no other good ground to entertain this petition. Hence, Petition is dismissed.
5. However, it is made clear that dismissal of this petition shall not come in the way of petitioner settling the matter with the respondent, if so advised.
I.A. No.1/2019 for stay does not survive for consideration. Hence, it is rejected.
SD/- JUDGE AN/-