Karnataka High Court
Smt H Ravikala vs Sri K V Rama Murthy on 14 September, 2009
Author: Subhash B.Adi
Bench: Subhash B.Adi
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 1.4"' DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2009
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRJUSTICE SUBHASH B.A.;i)i' 5
CRIMINAL PETITION N0.4444/gotmfoo A
BETWEEN: A O'
1. S1'I1t.H.Ravi1<ala,
D/o Bhaskar Shanbhog,
Aged about 40 years,
Canara Bank, --. '
R.N.Shetty Institute of T§:éi%n01--ogy-- (R.NSIT)',. %
Extension Counter, Channas5ar1d:Aa.,.,.V1" " --
Banga1ore--56006__1. M A "
2. Smt.Jayant11i.Sha:2;bh0g,_. *
C/0 S'ri'.Mahef;',dra I{f1iina'r;. AV
Aged-._abo_ut 70 'j*vr:a»1f$,'< » O' A 'V
No.8,}-5mMa1n, = '
Brindava'n'Layout, A A
Padn1anabh'anagar, _
3a:i1ga:ore--560o5_1, V . . . PETITIONERS
V. & Co. Adv.)
S:'i.K.V'.RamaAMufthy,
_. _. Aged about"58' 'years,
, AS/olatcooS;*i.K§R.V.Iyer,
'No.'3AU'5!D;.--'38'" Cross, _
575 Biozck,' Jay anagar,
'"Ba1_1gaiiore~56004i . .. RESPONDENT
-{rfsy Sri. c.v. Nagesh, Sr. Adv.) This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. praying to quash the order dated 8.8.2008 Summoning the petitioners herein in PCR.No.8479/2008 now on the file of XVI Add1.CMM., Banga1ore__City. This Petition coming on for admission this day, the Co:1rt'..the following: 8 '~ ' ~ "
Petitioners have called in P.C.R.No.8479/2008 pending on the fi1e.__of xiv: 8. City and the order dated 8.8.2008 passedidierciwn. Vi
2. Respondent has fi1ed'«--a:p;'iv'ateunder Section 200 of Cr.P.C. for an offence'--punishabie.--u'nder._Se_citi.onip:.ii'i38iiiiof the Negotiable Instruments Act read _Section'34 of_«-I}':C..i Alienation in the complaint is that, the:'taccius'edi§~ petfitioners"hereini entered into a contract with the coniplainantiand«inVdisci:ar'gei'of;tiiie'iloan, accused No.1 on her behalf and also on behalf oif~Vac'cuSé,d issued a cheque for Rs.23,00.000/- on
2.'~i~.20Ui8;iii"f7ne said chec1ue"'was presented for encashment with the banker of _the_.cioa1.piainant,_however, the same was returned dishonoured and thereafter, the legidnotice was issued and the complaint is filed. A 3. ixeatned Counsel for the petitioners submits that, cheque is 8 "iss'u.ed..b}i.*iaccused No.1 and the accused No.2 is impleaded as party. She has neither issued the cheque nor has committed any offence punishable «Q81;
g-"' f
-'~___issuing the.]egal notice, the offence would be committed. under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and submitted that, the complaint is misconceived and liable to be rejected.
4. On the other hand, learned Counsel appearitié"-iorrthe complainant submitted that, contract is between the cornp.l_ainanot"alnd~ accused, as both the accused in discharge o'f"th'e«!.iabi1ity.!iave_ issued the cheque. Though it is issued by accused No__.l:,*_however__. liabiliit;1"'isVpVon.VV both the accused. He further submitted"th,at, the ~--off'enc'e is one punishable under Section l38~..oi' the'"i\l 'egotiable Instruments Act read with Section 34 of IPC.
5. it is not in*'disp_tite that tiiecheque is is_s_ued by accused No.1 and the allegation'Vi'n'1ade. inlifhe coniplaintnshoiws that the accused No.1. in discharge of debt 'ag21i11i§'['..l'i1erV4aiidxlalsd against the accused No.2, issued the cheque. 'circu.mstaunces, Section 138 of N.I.Ac.t does not __permit, inrplead a person, who is neither drawer of the cheque nor he '?_has to "do with the instrument. It is only in respect of an intstrumeni;.,whiichf'ai_s.issued against the liability. and if it is dishonoured and no'««payn'1entA.ii'si made despite of demand made by the complainant by F ~r§.~.\~y.a