IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA CRIMINAL PETITION NO.9611/2016 BETWEEN:
MR. SRINIVAS RAO S/O NARASIMHA RAO, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, R/AT BATLAHALLI VILLAGE, CHINTAMANI TALUK, CHICKBALLAPUR DISTRICT-563123.
... PETITIONER (BY SRI MANJUNATH B. R., ADVOCATE) AND:
MR. VENKATESHAPPA S/O LATE MUNIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, R/AT BHYRANAYAKHALI VILLAGE, CHIKKAKONDANAHALLI HOBLI, BANGARPET TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT-563114.
... RESPONDENT (BY SRI N. MANOHAR, ADVOCATE) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH ALL PROCEEDINGS AGAINST PETR. IN C.C.NO.1204/2015 WHICH IS PENDING ADJUDICATION ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL C.J. AND J.M.F.C., BANGARPET.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R This petition is filed by accused No.1 in C.C.No. 1204/2015. The said proceedings are initiated based on a private complaint lodged by respondent herein under Sections 138 and 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offences and issued summons to both the accused.
2. The contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner herein (accused No.1) was not a signatory to the cheque in question. According to the complainant, the cheque in question was issued by accused No.2 and the petitioner-accused No.1 had no transaction whatsoever with the respondent. Hence, the proceedings against the petitioner-accused No.1 is wholly illegal and abuse of process of the Court.
3. The learned Counsel for the respondent is absent.
4. Perused the records.
5. In the complaint it is stated that on the promise made by accused No.1, the complainant with bonafide intention to help accused Nos.1 and 2 gave a hand loan of Rs.6,45,000/- (Rupees Six Lakhs Forty Five Thousand only) and at the time of availing the loan, both the accused persons executed the loan agreement in favour of the complainant. It is further stated that accused No.2 issued a cheque bearing No.828974 drawn on State Bank of India, Hebbal Branch, Bangalore for a sum of Rs.6,45,000/- and the said cheque has been dishonoured for insufficient funds.
6. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the list of documents was not enclosed to the complaint and the alleged loan agreement itself was not produced before the Court indicating that there was no loan transaction as alleged by the petitioner. In the said circumstances, accused No.2 being the drawer of the cheque, in my view, the prosecution for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act could be proceeded only against accused No.2 and not against the present petitioner. In that view of the matter, the petition deserves to be allowed.
7. Accordingly, petition is allowed. The impugned proceedings in so far as present petitioner viz., accused No.1 is concerned is quashed. The proceedings shall continue against accused No.2 in accordance with law.
Sd/-
JUDGE Nsu/-