Karnataka High Court
Sri B N Chandrashekar vs Sri Prem Kumar on 29 May, 2018
Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2018 KAR 330
Author: K.N.Phaneendra
Bench: K. N. Phaneendra
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF MAY, 2018
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K. N. PHANEENDRA
CRL.P. NO. 1882/2011
BETWEEN
SRI B N CHANDRASHEKAR
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
S/O P. NARAYANAPPA
R/AT "SRI VENKATESHWARA NILAYA"
NEAR VAKIL GARDEN APARTMENT
BELLANDUR, NEAR OUTER RING ROAD
BENGALURU - 560 013 ... PETITIONER
(BY SRI. R. NATARAJ, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. SRI PREM KUMAR
MAJOR IN AGE
S/O CHANGALRAYAPPA
R/AT C/O SUBRAMANI
LAKSHMI NILAIAH II CROSS
JAMES SCHOOL ROAD
AVALAHALLI, VIRGONAGAR (P) 8
BENGALURU - 560 049
2. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER
HSR LAYOUT POLICE STATION
BENGALURU ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. SANDESH J. CHOUTA, SPP-II FOR R-2)
THIS CRL.P IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 CR.P.C
PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DT:24.02.11 PASSED
BY THE VI ACMM, BANGALORE IN PCR NO.4263/11
2
REFERRING THE COMPLAINT FILED BY THE 1ST
RESPONDENT TO THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, HSR
LAYOUT P.S., FOR REGISTERING THE CASE FOR AN
OFFENCE P/U/S 420 IPC i.e. ANNEXURE-D.
THIS CRL.P COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY,
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
This petition is filed seeking to set aside the order dated 24.2.2011 passed by the VI ACMM, Bengaluru, in PCR No.4263/2011 referring the private complaint filed by one Mr. Prem Kumar, respondent No.1 herein for investigation u/s.156(3) of Cr.P.C.
2. Heard the learned counsels for the respective parties.
3. The brief factual matrix that emanate from the records are that -
The petitioner has filed a private complaint u/s.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act against one Sri K. Sunil, alleging that, he has given three cheques for Rs.5 lakhs each in favour of the petitioner. Subsequently, it appears, those cheques were found to be, belonged to the 3 respondent No.1 herein. When the complaint u/s.138 of Negotiable Instruments Act was pending, the respondent No.1 herein has filed a private complaint u/s.200 of Cr.P.C. against the petitioner herein, alleging the offence punishable u/s.420 of IPC, which was referred to the Police for investigation.
4. On perusal of the records, this court found that when two proceedings were pending, atleast one of the proceedings is required to be stayed. Perhaps, that may be the reason, that one case which was filed u/s.138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, was continued so that the entire dispute between the parties could be thrashed out. It is fairly submitted before this court by the learned counsel for the petitioner that, the proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is already terminated in dismissing the complaint on the ground that, the cheques were not actually issued by the accused in the said case i.e., particularly by Mr. K. Sunil.
5. It is evident from the records that, those cheques were actually belonged to respondent No.1 Mr. Prem Kumar. It is the case of the petitioner herein that 4 those cheques were actually given by one Mr. K. Sunil, which were belonged to Premkumar, duly signed by Mr. K. Sunil. But it is the case of the respondent No.1 in PCR No.4263/2011 that he has not actually signed those cheques but he has lost those cheques in the year 2010 and those cheques were manipulated and forged by the complainant herein. On those allegations, he has lodged a complaint.
6. The fact remains that the Police have to ascertain as to who is the actual culprit and who has actually forged the disputed cheques. Under the above said facts and circumstances of the case, when the complaint filed u/s.138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, has been completely disposed of, it is the duty of the Police to ascertain as to who actually forged those cheques and how it has come to the custody of Mr. K. Sunil or otherwise.
7. In the circumstances, when the private complaint is filed and referred to the Police, it should be logically concluded by the Police after investigation by filing appropriate report to the jurisdictional court. Therefore, the criminal law which was set into motion 5 cannot be stalled. Hence, the petition deserves to be dismissed. Accordingly, I pass the following:
ORDER The Petition is dismissed. The second respondent - Police who has registered the FIR in Crime No.67/2011 on the basis of the reference by the VI Addl. CMM, Bengaluru, in PCR No.4263/2011, is hereby directed to complete the investigation and submit the report as expeditiously as possible within three months from the date of receipt of the copy of this order.
Sd/-
JUDGE PL*