Karnataka High Court
Savitri D/O Sadashiv Dodamani vs The State Of Karnataka on 4 December, 2020
Author: H.B.Prabhakara Sastry
Bench: H.B.Prabhakara Sastry
CRL.P.No.101530/2017
C/w. CRL.P.No.101531/2017
:1:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2020
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE DR.JUSTICE H.B.PRABHAKARA SASTRY
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.101530/2017
C/w.
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.101531/2017
IN CRL.P.NO.101530/2017
BETWEEN:
1. Savitri
D/o. Sadashiv Dodamani
Age: 34 years, Occ: Advocate
R/o. Kiragi House, Sector No.63
Navanagar, Bagalkot.
2. Smt. Kasturibai,
W/o. Sadashiv Dodamani
Age: 58 years, Occ: Household works
R/o. Kiragi House, Sector No.63
Navanagar, Bagalkot.
3. Kiran @ Kirankumar,
S/o. Sadashiv Dodamani
Age: 31 years, Occ: Business
& Service in Mysore Minerals Ltd,
R/o. Kiragi House, Sector No.63
Navanagar, Bagalkot.
...PETITIONERS
(By Sri. Prashant S. Kadadevar, Advocate)
CRL.P.No.101530/2017
C/w. CRL.P.No.101531/2017
:2:
AND:
1. The State of Karnataka
Represented by State Public Prosecutor
High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench
Through Banahatti PS,
Tq: Jamakhandi, Dist: Bagalkot.
2. Basavaraj S/o. Chandrashekhareppa Bhuti
Age: 36 years, Occ: Advocacy & Agril,
R/o. Somwar Peth, Banahatti
Tq: Jamakhandi.
... RESPONDENTS
(By Sri. Praveen K. Uppar, HCGP for R1;
Sri. S. C. Bhuti, Advocate for R2)
---
This criminal petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
praying to quash the entire proceedings in CC No.187/2017
on the file of the Civil Judge and JMFC, Banahatti for the
offence punishable under Sections 182, 404, 406, 419, 420,
465, 468, 474 read with Section 34 of IPC.
IN CRL.P.NO.101531/2017
BETWEEN:
1. Kiran @ Kirankumar,
S/o. Sadashiv Dodamani
Age: 31 years, Occ: Business
& Service in Mysore Minerals Ltd,
R/o. Kiragi House, Sector No.63
Navanagar, Bagalkot.
2. Savitri, D/o. Sadashiv Dodamani
Age: 34 years, Occ: Advocate
R/o. Kiragi House, Sector No.63
Navanagar, Bagalkot.
CRL.P.No.101530/2017
C/w. CRL.P.No.101531/2017
:3:
3. Smt. Kasturibai,
W/o. Sadashiv Dodamani
Age: 58 years, Occ: Household works
R/o. Kiragi House, Sector No.63
Navanagar, Bagalkot.
...PETITIONERS
(By Sri. Prashant S. Kadadevar, Advocate)
AND:
1. The State of Karnataka
Represented by State Public Prosecutor
High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench
Through Banahatti PS,
Tq: Jamakhandi, Dist: Bagalkot.
2. Basavaraj S/o. Chandrashekhareppa Bhuti
Age: 36 years, Occ: Advocacy & Agril,
R/o. Somwar Peth, Banahatti
Tq: Jamakhandi.
... RESPONDENTS
(By Sri. Praveen K. Uppar, HCGP for R1;
Sri. S. C. Bhuti, Advocate for R2)
---
This criminal petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
praying to quash the entire proceedings in CC No.188/2017
on the file of the Civil Judge and JMFC, Banahatti for the
offence punishable under Sections 182, 404, 406, 420, 465,
468, 471, 474 read with Section 34 of IPC.
These petitions coming on for Admission through
physical hearing/video conferencing hearing this day, the
Court made the following:
CRL.P.No.101530/2017
C/w. CRL.P.No.101531/2017
:4:
COMMON ORDER
The present petitioners are accused Nos. 1, 2 and 3 respectively in both the criminal cases in CC No.187/2017 for the offences punishable under Sections 182, 404, 406, 419, 420, 465, 468 and 474 read with Section 34 of the IPC and CC No.188/2017 for the offences punishable under Sections 182, 404, 406, 420, 465, 468, 471 and 474 read with Section 34 of the IPC. Both the cases are said to be pending in the Court of the learned Civil Judge and JMFC at Bhatkal (hereinafter referred to as 'the trial Court', for brevity). The petitioners have sought for quashing of the said criminal proceedings against them.
2. The present respondent No.2 is the complainant in both the cases, whose private complaint was investigated by the 1st respondent Police, which has resulted into they filing charge sheet against the present CRL.P.No.101530/2017 C/w. CRL.P.No.101531/2017 :5: petitioners in both the cases. The allegations made in both the charge sheets against the petitioners are all identical except the alleged quantum of the amount said to have been involved in commission of the Crime.
3. The summary of the charge sheets are that, the present respondent No.2 (complainant) and the present petitioners/accused Nos. 1 to 3 are known to each other. At the request of the petitioner Sri. Kiran @ Kirankumar, respondent No.2/complainant gave him a hand loan of Rs.4,00,000/- on 04.04.2012 and another sum of Rs.9,00,000/- on dt.10.01.2013, however, the loan was availed for the family necessities of the loanee and in the presence of the remaining accused (petitioners).
With respect to the loan transaction of dt.10.01.2013, the sister of the said Kirankumar, namely, Savitri, D/o. Sadashiva Dodamani, had executed a promissory note for a sum of Rs.4,50,000/- in favour of the complainant. CRL.P.No.101530/2017 C/w. CRL.P.No.101531/2017 :6:
The said Kirankumar had issued two cheques to the complainant drawn on State Bank of India, Bagalkot, stating that those cheques can be presented after the period of repayment of the loan amount, which was agreed to be paid within a period of one month to three months and the cheque proceeds to be adjusted to the loan amount.
Accordingly, the complainant presented both the cheques for their realisation, when they were due for its presentation and on getting an endorsement from the collecting banker that, apart from the funds being insufficient, the drawer's signature upon the cheque was different than the specimen maintained by them, the complainant initiated two separate criminal proceedings under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act', for short), against the drawer of the instrument. However, he came to know that the said cheques issued by the drawer and his CRL.P.No.101530/2017 C/w. CRL.P.No.101531/2017 :7: family, i.e., the present petitioners, are the cheques belonging to one Sri. Sadashiv Dodamani, who is said to be the father of the petitioners Savitri and Kiran @ Kirankumar and husband of another petitioner Smt.Kasturibai. The said Sadashiv Dodamani was said to be working as a head constable in the police department and died on 10.07.2009. The cheques which were issued to the present complainant and bearing Nos.833083 and 833086, were found to have been issued by the banker to the said Sadashiv Dodamani towards his bank account with them, however, after the death of said Sadashiv Dodamani, these petitioners are said to have misused the cheques representing that the said cheques belong to the account of Kiran @ Kirankumar and those cheques were issued to the 2nd respondent herein by the present petitioners.
CRL.P.No.101530/2017C/w. CRL.P.No.101531/2017 :8:
It was also revealed to the respondent No.2 complainant that, even the promissory note shown to have been executed by Savitri, D/o. Sadashiv Dodamani, was also not executed by her, but it was executed by Smt.Kasturibai, W/o. Sadashiv Dodamani.
Thus, all the three petitioners i.e., accused Nos. 1 to 3, with their common intention only to deceive, fraud and cheat the complainant, are said to have used the cheques issued to the deceased Sadashiv Dodamani and alleging to be repayment of the loan, had issued the same to the complainant and also had executed a promissory note for a sum of Rs.4,50,000/- in favour of the complainant, but executed by another person i.e., mother of the executant of the promissory note.
The complainant after coming to know about these details did not press the private complaint instituted by him under Section 200 Cr.P.C., against Kiran @ Kirankumar for the offence under Section 138 of N.I. CRL.P.No.101530/2017 C/w. CRL.P.No.101531/2017 :9: Act, on the other hand, instituted another private complaint against eight accused including the present petitioners in both the cases under Section 200 Cr.P.C., alleging the offences under Sections 120B, 403, 406, 417, 424, 426, 420, 465 and 468 of the IPC.
The trial Court referred the case for investigation under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. The Investigating Officer submitted the charge sheets confining the same to the present petitioners only for the above said offences. Thus, against those two charge sheets in those two criminal cases, the present petitioners have filed the present petition.
4. Respondent No.1 is being represented by the learned HCGP and respondent No.2 is being represented by his counsel.
5. Though these matters are listed for admission, with the consent from both side, the same is taken up for its final disposal.
CRL.P.No.101530/2017C/w. CRL.P.No.101531/2017 : 10 :
6. Heard the arguments from both side and perused the materials placed before this Court.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioners in his arguments submitted that, the charge sheet is bereft of any material, prima facie showing any offences against the present petitioners. Admittedly, the alleged offence, if at all could be made out, is offence under Section 138 of N.I. Act, but not alleged offences under the IPC. As such, the charge sheets deserve to be quashed.
8. Learned HCGP as well as learned counsel for respondent No.2 in their arguments submitted that, the charge sheets very clearly mention that the cheques issued in favour of the complainant were not the cheques belonging to any of the present petitioners, but they were belonging to the deceased Sadashiv Dodamani, the father of the accused Kiran @ Kirankumar and Savitri and husband of the petitioner CRL.P.No.101530/2017 C/w. CRL.P.No.101531/2017 : 11 : Smt. Kasturibai. The present petitioners being the family members of the deceased Sadashiv Dodamani have misused the said cheques representing that the said cheques pertain to the accused Kirankumar and had issued the same towards repayment of the loan amount, for which the remaining accused also have joined their hands in the commission of the crime. Thus, the matter is required to be tried thoroughly to bring out the truth before the Court.
9. The charge sheet, which are almost identical in both the cases would go to show that the Investigating Officer during the course of investigation is said to have recorded statements of some of the material witnesses. Among them, the more pertinent and material witness is CW4 - Shashikant Dharmanna Mopagar. According to the complainant, the place of offence is said to be the office of the said CW4, who claims himself to be the bond writer. He is shown to CRL.P.No.101530/2017 C/w. CRL.P.No.101531/2017 : 12 : have given his statement before the police, wherein he shown to have stated that, on the alleged date of incident, all the three petitioners/accused came to his office and the complainant was also there, where the accused are claimed to have received the loan amount from the complainant. He has stated that, for the said transaction as a bond writer, he was requested by the petitioners to prepare documentation in the form of two promissory notes. Accordingly, he prepared two promissory notes, one each in the name of Kiran @ Kirankumar and Savitri and in his presence, the accused returned those documents stating that they have executed the said documents in favour of the complainant. The said witness is alleged to have stated that, subsequently he came to know that, after the dishonour of the cheque issued in favour of the complainant, it was revealed that, all the three accused joining hands and with their common intention, have CRL.P.No.101530/2017 C/w. CRL.P.No.101531/2017 : 13 : deceived the complainant by misusing the cheques belonging to their family member Sadashiv Dodamani.
The said statement of CW4 cannot be out-rightly discarded at this stage. He claims himself to be the one who is said to have prepared the promissory notes at the request of the petitioners. It is himself, who has stated that the promissory notes were handed over to the complainant by the petitioners stating that they have been executed by them. It is also the said witness who has stated that the wrong person had executed the promissory note impersonating the notified person in the promissory note.
10. As such, when the Investigating Officer is said to have collected certain materials to proceed against all the three accused in the charge sheets for the alleged offences, I do not consider that it is a fit case where the Court can interfere by exercising its power CRL.P.No.101530/2017 C/w. CRL.P.No.101531/2017 : 14 : under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER Criminal Petitions No.101530/2017 and 101531/2017 are dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE gab