Karnataka High Court
Sri V Thimmaiah vs Sri T Chandra Shekaraiah on 19 December, 2018
Author: P.S.Dinesh Kumar
Bench: P.S.Dinesh Kumar
CRL.P.NO.8037/2018
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2018
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE P.S.DINESH KUMAR
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.8037/2018
BETWEEN:
Sri. V. Thimmaiah,
Aged about 52 years,
S/o late Venkatappa,
R/at No.44, 6th Cross,
Balajinagar,
Mallathahalli Main Road,
Bengaluru - 560 056. ...Petitioner
(By Shri. D.C. Jagadeesh, Advocate)
AND:
Sri. T.Chandra Shekaraiah,
Aged about 53 years,
S/o late Thammaiah,
R/at No.231, BHEL,
Mini Colony, 3rd Main,
Pipeline, T.Dasarahalli,
Bengaluru - 560 057. ... Respondent
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482
of Cr.P.C., praying to quash the entire proceedings in
C.C.No.23756/2017, against the accused including the
order dated 25.09.2018 passed by the 12th ACMM, at
CRL.P.NO.8037/2018
2
Bangalore under Section 239 of Criminal Procedure
Code and consequently dismiss the complaint in
C.C.No.23756/2017 filed by the complainant for the
alleged offence P/U/S 138 of the N.I. Act.
This Criminal Petition coming on for Admission,
this day, the Court made the following:-
ORDER
Heard.
2. Respondent initiated proceedings under Section 138 of the N.I. Act before the learned magistrate by filing a private complaint. Complainant has been examined as PW1. At that stage petitioner- accused filed an application seeking discharge. Learned trial Judge has recorded that plea was read out to the accused and he pleaded not guilty and thereafter PW1 has been examined. Whilst, case was posted for cross-examination of PW1, instant application is filed. Accordingly he has dismissed the application.
CRL.P.NO.8037/20183
3. Learned Advocate for the petitioner submits that the cheque issued by the accused is Non-CTS cheque and therefore the entire proceedings are bad in law.
4. The contention urged by learned advocate for the petitioner is with regard to CTS cheque, the date of issuance of cheque and date of initiation of proceedings are all matters of fact which require to be proved after trial.
5. It is not in dispute that examination-in-chief of PW1 has been completed and case was posted for cross-examination of PW1. Since the trial is already in progress, the learned Magistrate in my view, has rightly dismissed the application seeking discharge. Hence, no grounds are made out to interfere by exercising powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. CRL.P.NO.8037/2018 4
6. Resultantly, this petition fails and it is accordingly dismissed.
7. In view of dismissal of the petition, I.A.No.1/2018 does not survive for consideration and the same stands disposed of. No costs.
Sd/-
JUDGE Psg*