Manager vs Mr S K Basavaraj on 5 July, 2019

[Cites 3, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Manager vs Mr S K Basavaraj on 5 July, 2019

Bench: John Michael Cunha

                           1



      IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

           DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF JULY 2019

                         BEFORE

       THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA

           CRIMINAL PETITION NO.3154 OF 2013

BETWEEN:

MANAGER
UTI BANK LIMITED
PRESENTLY KNOWN AS AXIS BANK LIMITED
P B ROAD, DAVANAGERE-567007
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER,
PRESENTLY TRANSFERRED TO PUTTUR BRANCH
                                     ... PETITIONER

(BY SRI: UNNI KRISHNAN M, ADVOCATE)

AND

MR S K BASAVARAJ
S/O S KOTRAPPA
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS
PROPRIETOR OF
M/S NANDI BOOK HOUSE
NO.66/1B1, SHIVANANDA PALAZA
P J EXTENSION
DAVANAGERE-567002.
                                        ... RESPONDENT

(BY SRI: I G GACHCHINAMATH, ADVOCATE)
                               2


     THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH
ALL PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.1174/2010 PENDING BEFORE THE
HON'BLE J.M.F.C.(I COURT) AT DAVANAGERE PENDING
AGAINST THE PETITIONER.

     THIS CRL.P COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING THIS DAY,
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-


                          ORDER

Heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned counsel for respondent.

2. Petitioner was the manager of UTI Bank Limited, P.B. Road, Davanagere. In the private complaint filed by respondent, petitioner was shown as accused No.3. The case of the respondent/complainant is that accused Nos.1 and 2 had issued two cheques in favour of the complainant bearing No.1297511 dated 3.11.2005 for Rs.12,800/- and another cheque bearing No.1297512 dated 08.11.2005 for Rs.20,000/- drawn on Krishna Grameena Bank, Bidar Branch. The complainant presented the said cheques through his banker viz., the petitioner(accused No.3) on 27.04.2006, but the said cheques were returned with an endorsement 'Both Outdated cheques'.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the complainant had no cause of action against the petitioner. As per the averments in the complaint, the complainant has forwarded the cheques for collection. The petitioner has not issued any endorsement to the complainant, as such, petitioner is neither a drawer bank nor drawee bank and therefore, the prosecution of the petitioner is wholly illegal and opposed to the provisions of N.I. Act.

4. Learned counsel for respondent however disputes the submissions and contends that specific allegations are made in the complaint to the effect that the cheques in question were presented to the petitioner bank within the validity period; the endorsement given to the complainant indicates that the same were presented after the expiry of term of the cheques, as a result, petitioner is also equally liable for the alleged act; the conduct of the petitioner in the circumstances of the case indicate that he has colluded with the accused and has deliberately presented the said cheques beyond the period of validity.

Considered the rival submissions and perused the records.

6. On going through the complaint, it is noticed that except stating that the cheques were presented through accused No.3 on 27.04.2006, there are no averments as to the date when the intimation was given to the petitioner. In the absence of this essential pleading, the very maintainability of the complaint is doubtful. Be that as it may, in the course of his sworn statement, the complainant has produced six documents marked as Exs-P1 to P6. Ex-P1 are two dishonoured cheques. Ex-P2 is the deposit slip, which is dated 27.04.2006. Ex-P3 is the endorsement issued by Karnataka Bank Limited intimating to the complainant about the dishonour of the cheques. This document does not bear any date. It merely states that the cheques in question were returned as both 'out-dated'. Undisputedly, said endorsement is issued by Karnataka Bank Limited and not by the petitioner herein. The complainant has not produced any material to show that any endorsement is issued by the petitioner regarding dishonour of the cheques. In the absence of such material, there is absolutely no basis to hold that the 5 petitioner herein intentionally delayed in forwarding the cheques for collection to Karnataka Bank Limited. As a result, prosecution of the petitioner being wholly illegal and contrary to the provisions of sections 420 and 422 of IPC cannot be sustained.

Accordingly, the petition is allowed. The proceedings initiated in C.C.No.1174/2010 on the file of JMFC(I Court), Davanagere are quashed only insofar as the petitioner is concerned.

Sd/-

JUDGE *mn/-

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court