Karnataka High Court
M/S Radiant Global Solutions vs Sri. J Hariprakash Sharma on 3 January, 2023
Author: K.Natarajan
Bench: K.Natarajan
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF JANUARY, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.NATARAJAN
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.10459 OF 2022
BETWEEN
1. M/S RADIANT GLOBAL SOLUTIONS
NO.CA-2, C1, A1 BLOCK,
VIJAYANAGAR III STAGE
DEVARAJA MOHALLA
MYSURU
KARNATAKA - 570 012
REPRESENTED BY
DR. RAJEEV A.G.
2. DR. RAJEEV A G
S/O AMATAPPA
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
PARTNER AND AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY
M/S RADIANT GLOBAL SOLUTIONS
(PATEL RUDRAPPA MEMORIAL TRUST)
NO.CA-2, C1, A-1 BLOCK,
VIJAYANAGAR III STAGE,
DEVARAJA MOHALLA
MYSURU
KARNATAKA - 570 012
... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI BRIJESH KALAPPA PALACHANDA, ADVOCATE)
AND
SRI. J HARIPRAKASH SHARMA
D/O JAGADISH PRAKASH SHARMA
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
2
R/AT D.NO.40, OLD HOSPITAL ROAD
NORTH SIDE, OLD EXTENSION,
BHADRAVATHI
SHIMOGGA DISTRICT
KARNATAKA
PARTNER, M/S RADIANT GLOBAL SOLUTIONS
(PATEL RUDRAPPA MEMORIAL TRUST)
NO.CA-2, C1, A-1 BLOCK
VIJAYANAGAR III STAGE,
DEVARAJA MOHALLA
MYSURU
KARNATAKA - 570 012 ... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI KIRAN S. JAVALI, SENIOR COUNSEL
FOR SRI CHANDRASHEKHARA K., ADVOCATE)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482
OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN
C.C.NO.2324/2021 PENDING ADJUDICATION ON THE FILE OF I
ADDITIONAL I CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C., MYSURU FOR THE
OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 138 OF NEGOTIABLE
INSTRUMENTS ACT.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND
RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 15.12.2022, THIS DAY, THE COURT
MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
This petition is filed by petitioner-accused Nos.1 and 2 under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashing the criminal proceedings in C.C.No.2324/2021 pending on the file of I Additional Civil Judge and JMFC (Jr. Dn.), Mysuru, for the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short 'the Act'). 3
2. Heard the arguments of learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Sri Kiran S. Javali, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent.
3. The case of the petitioners is that the respondent-complainant filed a private complaint under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. read with Section 138 of the Act alleging that he is a reputed business man at Bhadravathi and he is the partner in the firm of accused No.1 and trustee of Patel Rudrappa Memorial Trust. Accused No.1 is a registered partnership firm represented by accused No.2, who is the Managing Partner and Authorized Signatory. The respondent is said to be invested huge amount in the business and paid cash as his share for running the firm. It is contended that the accused promised that they will furnish the bank account details of M/s. Radiant Global Solutions, running hospital at Mysuru. There was fixed assets of Rs.8,34,28,726/- and the respondent- complainant has invested Rs.2,25,00,000/- by cash and Rs.25,80,837/- and Rs.1,91,15,803/- through bank 4 transfers, totalling more than Rs.3,00,00,000/-. Accused No.2 shown investment only Rs.1,23,49,928/-. The complainant invested Rs.2,05,08,083/- in Radiant Global Solutions. The complainant also said to be invested more than Rs.10.00 crores. Later, in a meeting dated 12.02.2021, accused No.2 met complainant and the complainant has expressed regrets and handed over cheque No.007677 dated 12.2.2021 drawn on State Bank of Mysore, Vontikoppal Branch, Mysore for Rs.4,37,40,000/-. When the cheque was presented, it got dishonoured for insufficient fund. Therefore, after issuing notice, the complaint came to be filed. The learned Magistrate took cognizance and issued summons which is under challenge.
4. Learned Counsel for the petitioners has mainly contended that the cheque alleged to have been issued by the respondent was drawn on State Bank of Mysore Vontikoppal branch, but the Central Government as per order issued in the year 2017, merged the State Bank of 5 Mysore with State Bank of India. There is circular issued by the RBI that the cheque issued by any person through State Bank of Mysore is invalid and stale cheque. Therefore, on that ground, the proceedings cannot be sustained. Hence, prayed for quashing the same.
5. Per contra, Sri Kiran S Javali, learned Senior Counsel for respondent, has seriously objected the petition and contended that as per the document produced by the accused regarding the circular issued by the RBI, it is stated, dishonour of cheque for want of sufficiency fund, but not for the reason that the cheque was stale or invalid cheque. The case is full of mixed question of facts and law and therefore, the bank manager is required to be examined before the Court in order to say that whether the cheque was issued by the drawer in favour of drawee and when the cheque was post dated cheque, it is bounden duty of the bank to honour the cheque. The Bank has dishonoured the cheque for insufficiency of funds but not on the ground of non existence of State Bank of Mysore 6 and the bank was merged with State Bank of India. Hence, prayed for dismissing the petition.
6. Having heard the arguments of learned Counsel for the parties on both sides, perused the records.
7. It is not in dispute that the respondent is said to be the partner of accused No.1, which is the hospital, run by the firm at Mysuru. The respondent is said to be invested huge amount in the business and later, the respondent said to be came out of the firm and for discharging liability of the firm and investment made, issued a cheque to accused Nos.1 and 2. Of course, the Central Government has merged State Bank of Mysore with State Bank of India in the year 2017 and all the accounts in the State Bank of Mysore has been transferred to the State Bank of India. However, there is no order that the cheque issued by the drawer in favour of the drawee shall hold good and valid for the purpose of presentation of same before the bank for encashment. The petitioners have produced RBI guidelines, but the said 7 guidelines states that the complainant has to be intimated by the banker stating that cheque pertaining to State Bank of Mysore has been returned with an endorsement that the cheque is a stale cheque or invalid cheque. However, in this case, the cheque was dishonoured for insufficiency of funds, but not for the reason that the bank was merged with State Bank of India. Therefore, it is a mixed question of facts and law. The complainant and accused required to examine bank Manager before the Magistrate in order to prove that the cheque was stale or invalid cheque or valid cheque. The statement of accounts of the petitioners- accused were produced and the respondent invested crores of amount in the petitioner's business. Therefore, this Court cannot go into and investigate the matter for the purpose of quashing criminal proceedings. It is a clear case that the petitioners require to face trial in order to prove their contention that the cheque was dishonoured not for insufficiency of funds but for stale cheque or invalid cheque. Therefore, the petition is devoid of merit and liable to be dismissed.
8
Accordingly, the petition filed by petitioner-accused Nos.1 and 2 is hereby dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE CS