Karnataka High Court
Sri Harender Naidu Bobbili vs Sri Satyadev S on 13 September, 2019
Author: John Michael Cunha
Bench: John Michael Cunha
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2019
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA
CRIMINAL PETITION No. 7806 OF 2016
BETWEEN:
1. SRI.HARENDER NAIDU BOBBILI,
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,
S/O SRI.PULIRAJU NAIDU,
2. SMT.B.USHA RANI,
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
W/O SRI.HARENDER NAIDU BOBBILI.
BOTH ARE RESIDING AT NO.11,
"SRI SAI NILAYA",
1ST CROSS, MUNISWAMAPPA LAYOUT,
THINDLU, VIDYARANYAPURA,
BANGALORE - 560 097.
... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. RAGHAVENDRA K, ADVOCATE)
AND:
SRI.SATYADEV S.,
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,
S/O LATE DR.H.B.SRIRANGACHAR,
RESIDING AT NO.1/5,
SREEKANTAN LAYOUT,
CRESCENT ROAD,
HIGH GROUNDS,
BANGALORE - 560 001.
... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI.P.N.RAJESWARA, ADVOCATE (ABSENT))
2
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF
CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 11.07.2016 PASSED
IN C.C.NO.15829/2016 PENDING ON THE FILE OF XV A.C.M.M.,
BANGALORE FOR THEIR APPEARANCE IN THE CASE BEFORE THE
COURT.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
This petition is filed under section 482 of Cr.P.C. seeking to quash the proceedings initiated against the petitioners under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act for dishonour of the cheque issued by the petitioner.
2. Heard learned counsel for petitioners. Learned counsel for respondent is absent.
3. Learned counsel for petitioners submits that the cheque in question was issued in respect of a sale transaction and the said sale has not been completed. Hence, there is no cause of action to proceed against the petitioners.
4. Further he submits that insofar as petitioner no.2 (accused no.1) is concerned, she is neither a signatory nor the said cheque has been issued on the account maintained by 3 petitioner no.2 (accused No.1). Hence, order passed by the learned Magistrate issuing summons to petitioner No.2 (accused No.1) is illegal and cannot be sustained.
5. On going through the averments made in the complaint, it is seen that the cheque in question was issued by accused No.2 on the account maintained by him towards consideration for execution of a document which was offered for registration. The averments made in the complaint clearly go to show that the said cheque has been dishonoured for the reason of 'stop payment'. There are clear averments as to the compliance of the formalities under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. As such, clear case is made out for prosecution of accused No.2. However, insofar as accused No.1 (petitioner No.2) is concerned, it is stated in the complaint as well as in the sworn statement of the complainant that the cheque in question was issued by second accused in respect of the sale deed executed by the complainant in favour of Sri Harender Naidu Bobbili. It is not the case of the complainant that the dishonoured cheque was either issued by Smt. B Usha Rani (accused No.1) or that the 4 account was standing in her name. In that view of the matter, the prosecution of accused No.1 (petitioner No.2) viz., Smt. B Usha Rani, cannot be sustained. To this extent the petition deserves to be allowed.
Accordingly, petition is allowed in part. The summons issued to petitioner No.2 (accused No.1)- Smt. B Usha Rani and the proceedings dated 11.07.2016 initiated against accused No.1 (petitioner No.2) in PCR No.2954/2016 (C.C.No.15829/2016) on the file of XV ACMM, Bengaluru City stands quashed.
Proceedings shall proceed only against accused No.2 (petitioner No.1) viz., Sri Harender Naidu Bobbili, in accordance with law.
Sd/-
JUDGE psg*