Karnataka High Court
Sri M R Sampangiramaiah vs State Of Karnataka on 30 August, 2013
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF AUGUST 2013
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K. N. KESHAVANARAYANA
CRL.P.No.94/2013
C/W
CRL.P.Nos.91/13 to 93/13, 95/13 to
97/13 AND 4605/2012
BETWEEN:
In Crl.P.Nos.94/13, 91/13 to 93/13,
And 95/13 to 97/13:
Sri.M.R.Sampangiramaiah,
Aged about 62 years,
S/o. Late M.S.Ramaiah,
Sri.Laxmi Venkateshwara Nilaya,
No.9, Bethel Street,
HRBR Layout, Kalyan Nagar,
Bangalore-560 043. ... Petitioner
(By Sri.Jayakumar .S.Patil, Senior Counsel for
Sri.R.Rajagopalan, Advocate)
In Crl.P.No.4605/2012:
Sri.K.V.Krishnamurthy,
Aged about 60 years,
S/o. Late Guthigeppa,
Residing at Flat No.B-302,
M.S.R Divya Gateway,
M.S.R Main Road, Gokul,
Bangalore-560 021. ....Petitioner
(By Sri.R.Nataraj &
Sri.M.H.Sriprakash, Advocates)
2
AND:
In Crl.P.Nos.94/13, 91/13 to 93/13,
95/13 & 96/13:
1. State of Karnataka,
By CCB Police,
Banaswadi (CCB-NT Pet),
Bangalore,
Through Public Prosecutor,
High Court of Karnataka,
Bangalore-560 001.
2. Sri.K.V.Krishnamurthy,
Aged about 59 years,
S/o. Late Guthigeppa,
Residing at No.78,
D-5 Block, Kendriya Vihar,
Yelahanka,
Bangalore-560 064.
Now Residing at
Flat No.312,
Divya MSR Gateway Apartments,
M.S.Ramaiah Road, Gokula,
Bangalore-560 054. ... Respondents
(By Sri.B.Raja Subramanya Bhat, HCGP for R-1;
Sri.R.Nataraj, Advocate for R-2)
In Crl.P.No.97/13:
1. State of Karnataka,
By CCB Police,
Banaswadi (CCB-NT Pet),
Bangalore,
Through Public Prosecutor,
High Court of Karnataka,
Bangalore-560 001.
3
2. S.R.Prabhakar,
Aged about 52 years,
S/o. Rudrappa,
Residing at Gama Village,
Shikaripura Taluk,
Shimoga District-577 427. ...Respondents
(By Sri.B.Raja Subramanya Bhat, HCGP for R-1;
Sri.R.Nataraj, Advocate for R-2)
In Crl.P.No.4605/12:
1. State of Karnataka,
By Banaswadi Police Station,
Bangalore-560 001.
2. Sri.M.R.Sampangiramaiah,
Aged about 60 years,
S/o. Late M.S.Ramaiah,
Sri.Laxmi Venkateshwara Nilaya,
No.9, Bethel Street,
HRBR Layout, Kalyan Nagar,
Bangalore-560 043. ...Respondents
(By Sri.B.Raja Subramanya Bhat, HCGP for R-1;
Sri.Jayakumar.S.Patil, Senior Counsel for
Sri.R.Rajagopalan, Advocate for R-2)
Criminal Petition No.94/13 is filed under Section 407
(1) of the Cr.P.C., praying to transfer C.C.No.7715/2012
pending before the XIII Additional Chief Metropolitan
Magistrate, Bangalore, to the court of the IV Additional Chief
Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore, to be tried
simultaneously with C.C.No.5577/2012, which is a case
instituted on Police Report.
Criminal Petition No.91/13 is filed under Section 407
(1) of the Cr.P.C., praying to transfer C.C.No.22698/2011
pending before the XII Additional Chief Metropolitan
Magistrate, Bangalore, to the court of the IV Additional Chief
4
Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore, to be tried
simultaneously with C.C.No.5577/2012, which is a case
instituted on Police Report.
Criminal Petition No.92/13 is filed under Section 407
(1) of the Cr.P.C., praying to transfer C.C.No.7713/2012
pending before the XIII Additional Chief Metropolitan
Magistrate, Bangalore, to the court of the IV Additional Chief
Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore, to be tried
simultaneously with C.C.No.5577/2012, which is a case
instituted on Police Report.
Criminal Petition No.93/13 is filed under Section 407
(1) of the Cr.P.C., praying to transfer C.C.No.30941/2011
pending before the XII Additional Chief Metropolitan
Magistrate, Bangalore, to the court of the IV Additional Chief
Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore, to be tried
simultaneously with C.C.No.5577/2012, which is a case
instituted on Police Report.
Criminal Petition No.95/13 is filed under Section 407
(1) of the Cr.P.C., praying to transfer C.C.No.7716/2012
pending before the XIII Additional Chief Metropolitan
Magistrate, Bangalore, to the court of the IV Additional Chief
Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore, to be tried
simultaneously with C.C.No.5577/2012, which is a case
instituted on Police Report.
Criminal Petition No.96/13 is filed under Section 407
(1) of the Cr.P.C., praying to transfer C.C.No.7717/2012
pending before the XIII Additional Chief Metropolitan
Magistrate, Bangalore, to the court of the IV Additional Chief
Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore, to be tried
simultaneously with C.C.No.5577/2012, which is a case
instituted on Police Report.
Criminal Petition No.97/13 is filed under Section 407
(1) of the Cr.P.C., praying to transfer C.C.No.26739/2011
pending before the XIV Additional Chief Metropolitan
Magistrate, Bangalore, to the court of the IV Additional Chief
Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore, to be tried
5
simultaneously with C.C.No.5577/2012, which is a case
instituted on Police Report.
Criminal Petition No.4605/12 is filed under Section 482
of the Cr.P.C., praying to quash the criminal proceedings
initiated against the petitioner by the Respondent Nos. 1 and
2 in C.C.No.5577/2012 before the IV Additional Chief
Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore, for the offences
punishable under Sections 406, 420, 471 and 506 of IPC.
These Criminal Petitions coming for Dictating Orders on
this day, the Court made the following:
ORDER
The parties to these petitions except in Criminal Petition No.97/2013 being common and since common questions of fact and law arises for consideration, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.
2) Criminal Petition Nos. 91/2013 to 97/2013 are filed under Section 407(1) of Cr.P.C. seeking transfer of C.C. Nos. 22698/2011, 7713/2012, 30941/2011, 7715/2012, 7716/2012, 7717/2012 and 26739/2011, which are pending before different courts, to the court of IV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore where in C.C.No.5577/2012 is pending, while Criminal 6 Petition No.4605/2012 is filed seeking to quash the prosecution launched against the petitioner therein, in C.C. 5577/2012 on the file of the IV-ACMM, Bangalore, for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 471 & 506 of IPC.
3) The prosecutions launched by the Respondent- Complainant in Criminal Petition Nos. 91/2013 to 97/2013 are for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short, 'N.I. Act' ). The common petitioner-accused in Criminal Petition Nos. 91/2013 to 97/2013 is one M.R.Sampangiramaiah. He is the De facto complainant in the prosecution launched in C.C. No.5577/2012 against one K.V. Krishnamurthy.
4) The common 2nd respondent-complainant in Criminal Petition Nos. 91/2013 to 96/2013 is aforesaid K.V. Krishnamurthy, while he is the petitioner-accused in Criminal Petition No.4605/2012. The 2nd respondent- complainant in Criminal Petition No.97/2013 is one 7 Prabhakar, who is stated to be a friend of K.V. Krishnamurthy.
5) According to the 2nd Respondent-Complainant in Criminal Petition Nos. 91/2013 to 96/2013, the accused-M.R. Sampangiramaiah and the complainant are friends and for his needs, said M.R. Sampangiramaiah borrowed various amounts from the complainant on different dates and issued cheques for discharge of the said debts and when those cheques were presented for encashment, they were returned un-paid and in spite of service of notice, he failed to pay the amounts covered under the cheques, as such, he has committed the offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I. Act.
6) According to the complainant-2nd Respondent in Criminal Petition No.97/2013, there was an agreement of sale entered into between the complainant and the accused agreeing to sell a flat constructed by the accused and under the said agreement, huge advance amount was received. However, later, the accused failed to execute the sale deed 8 and agreed to repay the advance amount with damages and towards the discharge of said liability, he issued cheques, which came to be dishonoured on presentation and in spite of service of statutory notice, the amount covered under the cheques was not paid, as such, he is guilty of the offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. Those complaints are pending before the different courts. The common accused appeared in those cases and is defending the prosecutions. In the meanwhile, the said M.R.Sampangiramaiah filed a report before Banaswadi Police on 02.05.2011, based on which the case in Crime No.217/2011 came to be registered for the offences punishable under Sections 402, 471, 406, 506 of IPC against K.V. Krishnamurthy. In the said report, M.R.Sampangiramaiah alleged that, said K.V. Krishnamurthy falsely represented to him that he knows one Sri.Vidyaraj, arraigned as Accused No.2, is belonged to the family of Vijayanagar Empire; that said Vidyaraj is in possession of precious Stones and Rubies; that he has entered into an agreement with the said Vidyaraj to buy 9 those precious stones worth several hundred crores and he showed copies of several newspaper cuttings, valuation certificates etc. and also copy of the agreement said to have been entered into between himself and Vidyaraj; that thereby, accused-K.V.Krishnamurthy made him to believe that he has authority to negotiate for sale of those priceless precious Stones and Rubies and also made him to believe that he could buy some of those precious stones for a throw-away price of Rs.1 Crore 20 lakhs; that when he told that he does not have money for that, the accused-K.V. Krishnamurthy promised that he would make arrangement for money and that the complainant could repay the money in instalments; that in that background, accused K.V. Krishnamurthy received various amounts running upto about Rs.1.50 Crores from the complainant between the years 2000 to 2005 and in the year 2005, accused-K.V. Krishnamurthy delivered a bag said to contain precious stone weighing about 17 kgs. and asked the complainant not to open the same until he attains 61 years of age; that believing the said words, the complainant received the bag 10 said to contain precious stone and kept the same in his Pooja Room and did not open the same till he turned 61 years; that subsequently, when the complainant informed Accused No.1 that he would give the stone which is in his possession to Venkataramana Swamy Temple at Thirupathi, Accused No.1 again represented to the complainant that Mr. Vidyaraj is in possession of a fine ruby, which is worth more than Rs.1 crore 20 lakhs and when the complainant expressed his willingness to purchase the same, Accused No.1 received several cheques from him and told the complainant that he would keep ruby with him till the complainant pays entire money and when Accused No.1 started pestering for the money and since the complainant started facing lot of problems, on one fine day, after he turned 61 years, he opened the bag and to his utter shock and surprise, he found that it was an ordinary piece of stone and not a precious stone; that immediately, he took the same to a jeweler, who on examination confirmed that it is only a piece of ordinary stone; that thus he has been deceived and cheated by 11 accused-K.V. Krishnamurthy. According to him, the cheques which were delivered to said K.V. Krishnamurthy were all the product of fraud and acts of cheating, therefore, he is not liable to honour any of them.
7) Subsequently, the investigation of the case was taken-over by CCB and after completion of investigation, charge sheet came to be laid in C.C. No.5577/2012, before the IV-ACMM, Bangalore.
8) Sri. M.R.Sampangiramaiah has filed petitions under Section 407 of Cr.P.C. seeking transfer of prosecutions launched against him for the offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I.Act, before the Court of IV-ACMM, Bangalore, where the case in C.C. No.5577/2012 is pending, for a simultaneous trial and disposal by one and the same Presiding Officer inter alia on the grounds that, though in stricter sense, the cases may not be termed as cross cases or counter cases, the subject matter of the prosecution launched for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I. Act and the 12 allegations made in the charge sheet filed in C.C. No.5577/2013 relate to one and the same transaction and the facts sought to be projected by him in C.C.No.5577/2013 are in the nature of defence in the prosecution launched against him for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I. Act, and to avoid any conflicting decision, it is just and necessary that all these cases have to be tried by one and same Presiding Officer.
9) Accused in C.C. No.5577/2012 has filed criminal petition seeking to quash the prosecution launched inter alia on the grounds that the complaint filed is as a counter-blast to the prosecution for the offence under Section 138 of N.I.Act and to make-out defence in the said prosecutions and the allegations made in the complaint are patently absurd and inherently improbable, since no prudent man could ever believe that such an incident could occur and therefore, the prosecution launched against him for the offences punishable under 13 Sections 406, 420,471 & 506 of IPC is liable to be quashed. At any rate, he contends that since the prosecution brought against M.R.Sampangiramaiah for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I. Act and the offences alleged in C.C. No.5577/2012 are entirely different, question of trying those cases before one court simultaneously, does not arise and the accused-M.R.Sampangiramaiah in the prosecutions for the offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act, could as well take all those contentions as defence, in which event, the court dealing with the cases for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I. Act, is required to adjudicate the same on such point. Therefore, he contends that the transfer petitions filed are without any basis and are liable to be dismissed.
10) I have heard Sri. Jayakumar S. Patil, learned Senior Counsel appearing for M.R.Sampangiramaiah, the common petitioner in the transfer petitions and Sri. R. Nataraj, learned counsel appearing for K.V. Krishnamurthy, the respondent in Criminal Petition Nos. 91/2013 to 14 96/2013 and petitioner in Criminal Petition No.4605/2012. I have also heard learned counsel for the Respondent in Criminal Petition No.97/2013.
11) Having heard the learned counsels appearing for the parties, the points that arise for considers are,-
i) Whether the prosecutions which are the subject matter of Criminal Petition Nos.
91/2013 to 97/2013 are required to be transferred to the Court of IV-ACMM, Bangalore, for being tried along with C.C. No.5577/2012; and
ii) Whether the prosecution in C.C. No.5577/2012 is liable to be quashed.
12) Let me first consider as to whether the prosecution launched against K.V.Krishnamurthy in C.C. No. 5577/2012 is liable to be quashed, since the answer to this point would have bearing on the question as to whether the prosecutions launched by him and another for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I. Act requires to be transferred or not.
15
13) In Amit Kapoor Vs. Ramesh Chander and Another [(2012) 9 SCC 460], Their Lordships while dealing with the power of the High Court to quash criminal prosecution, in the light of the various earlier decisions of the Supreme Court, have set-out the principles to be considered for proper exercise of the jurisdiction with regard to quashing of the criminal prosecution thus in Paragraph-27:-
27.1. Though there are no limits of the powers of the Court under Section 482 of the Code but the more the power, the more due care and caution is to be exercised in invoking these powers. The power of quashing criminal proceedings, particularly, the charge framed in terms of Section 228 of the Code should be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare cases.
27.2. The Court should apply the test as to whether the uncontroverted allegations as made from the record of the case and the documents submitted therewith prima facie establish the offence or not. If the allegations are so patently 16 absurd and inherently improbable that no prudent person can ever reach such a conclusion and where the basic ingredients of a criminal offence are not satisfied then the Court may interfere.
27.3. The High Court should not unduly interfere. No meticulous examination of the evidence is needed for considering whether the case would end in conviction or not at the stage of framing of charge or quashing of charge.
27.4. Where the exercise of such power is absolutely essential to prevent patent miscarriage of justice and for correcting some grave error that might be committed by the subordinate courts even in such cases, the High Court should be loath to interfere, at the threshold, to throttle the prosecution in exercise of its inherent powers.
27.5. Where there is an express legal bar enacted in any of the provisions of the Code or any specific law in force to the very initiation or institution and continuance of such criminal proceedings, such a bar is intended to provide specific protection to an accused.17
27.6. The Court has a duty to balance the freedom of a person and the right of the complainant or prosecution to investigate and prosecute the offender.
27.7. The process of the Court cannot be permitted to be used for an oblique or ultimate/ulterior purpose.
27.8. Where the allegations made and as they appeared from the record and documents annexed therewith to predominantly give rise and constitute a "civil wrong" with no "element of criminality" and does not satisfy the basic ingredients of a criminal offence, the Court may be justified in quashing the charge. Even in such cases, the Court would not embark upon the critical analysis of the evidence.
27.9. Another very significant caution that the courts have to observe is that it cannot examine the facts, evidence and materials on record to determine whether there is sufficient material on the basis of which the case would end in a conviction; the Court is concerned primarily with the allegations taken as a whole whether they will constitute an offence and, if so, 18 is it an abuse of the process of court leading to injustice.
27.10. It is neither necessary nor is the court called upon to hold a full- fledged enquiry or to appreciate evidence collected by the investigating agencies to find out whether it is a case of acquittal or conviction.
27.11. Where allegations give rise to a civil claim and also amount to an offence, merely because a civil claim is maintainable, does not mean that a criminal complaint cannot be maintained.
27.12. In exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 228 and/or under Section 482, the Court cannot take into consideration external materials given by an accused for reaching the conclusion that no offence was disclosed or that there was possibility of his acquittal. The Court has to consider the record and documents annexed therewith by the prosecution.
27.13. Quashing of a charge is an exception to the rule of continuous prosecution.
Where the offence is even broadly satisfied, the Court should be more inclined to permit 19 continuation of prosecution rather than its quashing at that initial stage. The Court is not expected to marshal the records with a view to decide admissibility and reliability of the documents or records but is an opinion formed prima facie.
27.14. Where the charge-sheet, report under Section 173(2) of the Code, suffers from fundamental legal defects, the Court may be well within its jurisdiction to frame a charge.
27.15. Coupled with any or all of the above, where the Court finds that it would amount to abuse of process of the Court or that interest of justice favours, otherwise it may quash the charge.The power is to be exercised ex debito justitiae, i.e. to do real and substantial justice for administration of which alone, the courts exist.
[Ref. State of West Bengal -Vs- Swapan Kumar Guha; Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia -Vs- Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre; Janata Dal -Vs- H.S.Chowdhary; Rupan Deol Bajaj-Vs-Kanwar Pal Singh Gill; G.Sagar Suri-Vs-State of Uttar Pradesh; Ajay Mitra-Vs- State of Madhya Pradesh; Pepsi Foods Ltd-Vs-Special Judicial Magistrate; State of Uttar Pradesh-Vs- O.P.Sharma; Ganesh Narayan Hegde-Vs-S.Bangarappa; Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd-Vs- Mohd.Sharaful Haque; Medchl Chemicals & Pharma (P) Ltd-Vs-Biological E.Ltd; 20
Shakson Belthissor -Vs-State of Kerala; V.V.S.Rama Sharma-Vs-State of Uttar Pradesh; Chunduru Siva Ram Krishna-Vs-Peddi Ravindra Babu; Sheonandan Paswan-Vs- State of Bihar; State of Bihar-Vs-P.P. Sharma; Lalmuni Devi-Vs- State of Bihar; M. Krishnan-Vs-Vijay Singh; Savita-Vs-State of Rajasthan and S.M. Datta-Vs- State of Gujarat.] 27.16. These are the principles which individually and preferably cumulatively (one or more) be taken into consideration as precepts to exercise of extraordinary and wide plenitude and jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code by the High Court. Where the factual foundation for an offence has been laid down, the courts should be reluctant and should not hasten to quash the proceedings even on the premise that one or two ingredients have not been stated or do not appear to be satisfied if there is substantial compliance with the requirements of the offence." Keeping in mind the above principles laid-down in various decisions, let me proceed to consider the case on hand.
14) From the contents of the report lodged by M.R.Sampangiramaiah before the jurisdictional police, it is noticed that, he hails from a reputed family being the son 21 of Late Sri.M.S. Ramaiah, a wealthy family running several educational institutions in Karnataka. The complainant is also highly qualified person and is actively involved in running educational institutions. According to the complaint allegations as noticed supra, the accused-K.V. Krishnamurthy said to have represented to the complainant that one Vidyaraj, a Retired Lawyer owns three largest rubies in the world and that the Guinness Book of World recorded the list of three Gems as the largest rubies in the garnet in the world and to support the same, the accused also made available to him the various newspaper cuttings, articles, etc. and thereby made him to believe and pay money for purchasing rubies and precious stones and in that regard, he issued several cheques to K.V. Krishnamurthy. It is further alleged in the complaint that on a certain day, the said K.V. Krishnamurthy delivered a bag said to contain precious stone weighing about 17 kgs. and asked him to keep the same in Pooja Room without opening the bag until he turns 61 years and believing those words, he kept the same in the Pooja Room 22 till he turned 61 years and when he opened the same after he turned 61 years of age, to his surprise, it was found to be an ordinary piece of stone and not a precious stone as sought to be made-out, thereby, he was cheated.
15) It is very pertinent to note here that this complaint though dated as 27.04.2011, was actually lodged before the jurisdictional police on 02.05.2011. It is not in serious dispute that before 02.05.2011, M.R.Sampangiramaiah had received a notice from K.V. Krishnamurthy in respect of some of the dishonoured cheques calling upon him to pay the money covered under those cheques. It is thereafter, the present complaint came to be lodged before the jurisdictional police and during investigation of that case, few other cheques, which were in the possession of K.V. Krishnamurthy were seized and subsequently, those cheques were got released from the custody of the police pursuant to the orders passed by the jurisdictional Magistrate and thereafter they were presented for encashment. Sri. M.R.Sampangiramaiah, who received 23 the earliest notice regarding dishonour of the cheque, though issued a reply, in the said reply, he did not disclose any of the facts alleged in the complaint lodged by him on 02.05.2011, except stating that the cheques are the product of fraud and misrepresentation. If really the complainant had been cheated in such a way, at the earliest point of time, he would have come-out with the said defence. However, he kept quiet. Having regard to the fact that the complainant hails from a highly reputed family, which is running several educational institutions, it is highly improbable to believe that such a person would believe the so-called representation said to have been made by the accused and part with huge sums of money and receive a piece of stone represented to be a precious stone and keeps the same in pooja room without even opening it. It is not as if that the complainant had no knowledge of the source of the alleged precious stone. Even according to the complainant, he was informed by the accused that one Sri.Vidyaraj, a lawyer in Bangalore is in possession of Precious Stones and Rubies. Therefore, there was no 24 difficulty for the complainant to ascertain the said facts from Sri.Vidyaraj. It is highly unnatural to accept that a person of the stature of complainant would part with huge sums without ascertaining the truthness of the representation said to had been made by the accused. As could be seen from the chargesheet papers, except the complainant statement, no one have witnessed the alleged transaction. The statements of other witnesses who are the employees of complainant, are hear say, as according to them the complainant told them about the transactions. Thus there is absolutely no acceptable evidence to substantiate the allegations. The allegations made in the complaint, in my considered opinion, are patently absurd and inherently improbable and it is highly difficult for any prudent man to believe such statements and even come to the prima facie conclusion that the complainant has been deceived and cheated. In any case, if according to M.R.Sampangiramaiah-complainant, the cheques which are subject matter of the prosecution for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I. Act, have been 25 parted with by him under the circumstances stated in the complaint, it is open for him to take-up such defence in those prosecutions and substantiate the same and thereby rebut the presumption under Section 139 of the N.I. Act. No doubt, the jurisdictional police after completing investigation have filed charge sheet. The contents of the charge sheet, of course indicates that certain stones said to have been produced by the complainant were seized and the same was subjected to examination by jewels and Gems Experts, who have reported that it is not a precious stone and it is an ordinary granite stone.
16) Perusal of the charge sheet papers does not prima facie indicate that those seized stones were handed- over by the accused-K.V. Krishnamurthy to the complainant- M.R.Sampangiramaiah. On the other hand, various agreements said to have been executed by M.R.Sampangiramaiah in favour of K.V. Krishnamurthy and his relatives and friends, copies of which have been produced, prima facie indicates that there was monetary 26 transactions between him and the complainant, and in that background, the cheques were issued.
17) There is great force in the contention of the petitioner that the prosecution launched in C.C.No.5577/2012 is as counter blast to the prosecutions for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I.Act, since the report before the police was lodged after the receipt of statutory notice under Section 138 of N.I.Act in one case.
18) Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and the materials placed along with the charge sheet, I am of the considered opinion that no case is made- out against the accused in C.C. No. 5577/2012 for the offences alleged therein, and therefore, the continuance of the prosecution therein is nothing but abuse of process of the court, as such, it is a fit matter to exercise jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to quash the prosecution. In the light of this finding, there is no need to order transfer 27 of the prosecutions launched for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I. Act.
19) In view of the above discussions, Criminal Petitions 91/2013 to 97/2013 are dismissed and Criminal Petition No.4605/2012 is allowed. The prosecution launched against the petitioner therein in C.C. No.5577/2012 on the file of the IV-ACMM, Bangalore, is hereby quashed.
SD/-
JUDGE KGR*