Karnataka High Court
Sri. J. Srinivas S/O Satyojirao vs Sri. Gangappa S/O Fakkirappa ... on 9 October, 2020
Author: H.B.Prabhakara Sastry
Bench: H.B.Prabhakara Sastry
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2020
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE DR.JUSTICE H.B.PRABHAKARA SASTRY
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.101539/2017
BETWEEN:
Sri. J. Srinivas S/o. Satyojirao,
Age 50 years, Occ: Contractor,
R/o. Ward No.10, New Well Street,
Sandur, Tq. Sandur, Dist. Ballari.
... Petitioner
(By Sri. S.M.Kalwawad, Advocate)
AND:
Sri. Gangappa S/o. Fakkirappa Appannavar,
Age 76 years, Occ: Pensioner,
R/o. Hubballi, Tq. Hubballi,
Dist. Dharwad.
...Respondent
(By Sri. Suresh N. Kini, Advocate for respondent)
---
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of
Cr.P.C., seeking to quash the Trial Court Proceedings in
C.C.No.30 of 2016 (P.C.No.12 of 2015) pending on the file of
Prl. Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Haveri for the offence
:2: Crl.P.No.101539/2017
punishable under Section 418, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 and
109 r/w. Section 34 of IPC, insofar as petitioner is concerned,
pending disposal of the criminal petition.
This petition coming on for Admission through physical
hearing/video conferencing hearing this day, the court made
the following:
ORDER
The present respondent has instituted a private complaint against the present petitioner and two others under Section 200 of Code of Criminal Procedure (for brevity 'Cr.P.C.') for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 418, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 and 109 read with Section 34 of IPC.
2. The summary of the said complaint was that, there is a civil dispute pending between the parties in O.S.No.132/2014, as such, the accused in the said complaint had developed rivalry against the complainant. All the three accused in furtherance of :3: Crl.P.No.101539/2017 their common intention to cheat the complainant of a sum of `25,00,000/-, some how secured a withdrawal slip from Karnataka Central Co-operative Bank, Haveri Branch, in the name of the complainant and by themselves filling up the contents for a sum of `25,00,000/- and forging the signature of the complainant, showing its date of issue as 11.04.2015, presented the said cheque for its realisation. After its dishonor, they got issued a notice to the complainant through their counsel, demanding the payment of cheque amount within fifteen days from the date of notice. After receiving the notice, the complainant ran to the said Bank only to ascertain that the said cheque was not issued by the complainant and even the Bankers also were not aware as to how come the said cheque which was an old cheque of fifteen to twenty years, reached the hands of the accused.
:4: Crl.P.No.101539/2017
The complainant has further alleged that the accused people in their village were canvassing among the people that they would send the complainant to the jail for the dishonour of the cheque. After coming to know about the same, the complainant though attempted to lodge a complaint with the police, since they refused to take the complaint, was constrained to file a private complaint under Section 200 of Cr.P.C.
3. The accused No.1 in the said complaint has filed the present petition seeking quashing of the said private complaint which has now matured in Criminal Case No.30/2016, pending in the Court of the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge & CJM, Haveri (hereinafter for brevity referred to as 'the Trial Court') for the alleged offences.
:5: Crl.P.No.101539/2017
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner is physically present in the Court. Learned counsel for the respondent is appearing through video conference.
5. Though this matter is listed for Admission, with the consent from both sides, the matter is taken up for final hearing.
6. Heard arguments from both side.
7. The learned counsel for the petitioner in his arguments submitted that, after the institution of the complaint the complainant has paid the entire cheque amount and has collected back the cheque in question, as such, the private complaint filed by him, does not survive. Learned counsel also submits that, in the absence of the complainant producing the alleged dishonoured cheque, the learned Magistrate ought not to have taken the cognizance of the offence. :6: Crl.P.No.101539/2017
8. The learned counsel for the respondent in his arguments submitted that, the legal notice at Annexure- A clearly shows that the accused had issued a legal notice alleging the dishonour of the cheque for a sum of `25,00,000/-, for which a suitable reply as per Annexure-B was given to them without any delay stating that the cheque does not pertain to the complainant and the instrument was stranger to the complainant. He further submitted that, the accused by some how getting a withdrawal slip from the Bank, where the complainant was maintaining an account, had forged the signature of the complainant and filed a false case against him.
9. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not disputed that a legal notice dated 08.06.2015 as per Annexure-A to this petition was issued on behalf of the present petitioner to the complainant informing him about the dishonour of a cheque for a sum of :7: Crl.P.No.101539/2017 `25,00,000/- and demanding the payment of the said cheque amount within fifteen days from the date of receipt of the legal notice. Learned counsel further submits that a reply as per Annexure-B was given by the complainant to the notice at Annexure-A. Thus, it is not in dispute that for the alleged dishonour of a withdrawal slip, which the complainant has called as cheque No.041852, drawn on Karnataka Central Co-operative Bank, Haveri Branch, the present petitioner/accused had issued a legal notice demanding the payment of the cheque amount. The said notice after its receipt by the complainant was replied by the complainant as per Annexure-B. In the very reply notice, the complainant has taken a contention that the alleged cheque does not belong to him and that he had never issued the said cheque. In the reply he has further mentioned that after receipt of the legal notice, he rushed to his Banker and enquired about the same and :8: Crl.P.No.101539/2017 in response, the Banker told him that the cheque mentioned in the legal notice at Annexure-A was not issued to the complainant by the said Banker. Mentioning the same in his reply notice as well denying the issuance of cheque as well the alleged signature in the said cheque, the complainant disowned the alleged cheque and denied his liability towards the accused.
10. With the above undisputed fact when the complaint lodged by the respondent herein is verified, the respondent as a complainant, has narrated the very same alleged facts in his complaint and contended that the accused only with an intention to harass him and for putting him to some difficulty, had secured a withdrawal slip which was unconnected with his Bank account and by forging his signature had filled the cheque for a huge amount by themselves and presented it for its realisation.
:9: Crl.P.No.101539/2017
11. In the said background, if the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the learned Magistrate ought not to have taken cognizance in the absence of production of the said cheque by the complainant is verified, the only answer that comes is, in the absence of any material to show that the complainant had paid the cheque amount to the accused and collected the said cheque back, as contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, it cannot be expected that the complainant was required to produce the alleged cheque along with his complaint in the Court below.
12. In the above connection, the continued argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the non-initiating of any criminal case against the present complainant for the offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I.Act, itself would prove that the cheque was returned to the complainant, also is not : 10 : Crl.P.No.101539/2017 acceptable, for the reason that, in the light of Annexures-A & B and the contents of the complaint at this stage and prima facie, it can be inferred that the accused after giving the reply as per Annexure-B realised that the complainant has given a suitable reply to that notice and he may initiate a legal action against them have now come up with the said defence that the cheque amount of `25,00,000/- has been paid to them in cash and the cheque has been collected back by the present complainant (respondent). Therefore, the said argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner on the said line is not acceptable.
13. Further the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner that, when the Banker has stated that the said cheque was not issued to the complainant, the present complainant/ respondent cannot initiate the present complaint, as such, the present complaint is not maintainable, is also not acceptable, for the simple : 11 : Crl.P.No.101539/2017 reason that, when the accused through their legal notice at Annexure-A have alleged that the complainant had issued a cheque for a sum of `25,00,000/- to them and the same got dishonoured, then the complainant who has taken a defence that the cheque has got nothing to do with him and his signature in the alleged cheque has been forged, gets every right to prosecute the alleged payee in the cheque, in accordance with law. Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the complaint is not maintainable is also not acceptable.
14. A perusal of the complaint at this stage and prima facie would go to show that, the complainant has made certain serious allegation of fraud alleged to have been played upon him and forging of the documents by the accused, in support of which, it appears that he has placed some material before the Court. As such, I do not find any reason to hold that there is any possibility of : 12 : Crl.P.No.101539/2017 the abuse of process of law or any grave injustice being caused to the present petitioner. Accordingly, I do not find any reason to exercise the power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., as such, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER The Criminal Petition stands dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE *Svh/-