Sri Ashok Kumar vs Dr T R Bhageerathi Claiming To Be The Wife ... on 17 June, 2008

[Cites 9, Cited by 4]

Karnataka High Court

Sri Ashok Kumar vs Dr T R Bhageerathi Claiming To Be The Wife ... on 17 June, 2008

Equivalent citations: AIR 2009 (NOC) 131 (KAR.) = 2008 (6) AIR KAR R 219, 2009 CRI. L. J. 221, 2009 (2) AJHAR (NOC) 380 (KAR.), 2008 (6) AIR KANT HCR 219, (2009) 2 ALLMR 30 (KAR), (2009) 1 NIJ 349, 2009 (2) ALL MR 30 JS, (2009) 75 ALLINDCAS 749 (KAR), 2009 (75) ALLINDCAS 749, (2008) ILR (KANT) 3865, 2009 (65) ALLCRIC 11 SOC, (2009) 2 BANKCAS 496, (2009) 2 CRIMES 187, (2009) 1 KANT LJ 17, (2008) 4 ALLCRILR 716, (2009) 2 CIVLJ 384, (2009) 1 CIVILCOURTC 304, (2009) 1 ICC 70, (2009) 2 BANKCLR 577

Bench: H N Nagamohan Das

;PR;'IKRLYFi>Hi,C:LIN1C

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
I3A'I'I::13 THIS mm 17"' DAY OF JUNE, 2008 2
BEFORE

TEE H€I)N'BLE gym. JUSTICE rm. NAGIaIIoHIa.Ix:.Ij§;%-Is' 75.: .

CRIM1NALPETITI(}NNu. :§Io95I_;;'_g';1«3_;5"".IT  " I '% V

BETWEEN .'

----CAIkdIv|k¢----$--¢--¢

SR1 ASHOK KUMAR
AGED 30 YEARS,   

cepposma OF COURT BUIDLII-EG; _ 

BAGEPALLITOWN,   :   
KOLARDISTRICT.   _ ?E7ITI'IONER
(By Sri. SUNIL S.DE.SAL;11-A,I_)'JV.,"FGR 4. , 
Sri. <:1t--L»~IIxI3::»R;xI<;:.;.-"~':'I""IgII 'RV-Cxzguz-A}: L-*~';]:_)V,)', '

  --------    H

DR TRBHAG;ifERATHI._ '    
CLAIMING TO I3EfIIII: X'%".i'£'E .03 
DR.A.G.SAI}ANANi}:_\ BHAT,  '
AGED ABg§'.)U'1"' .44; YEARS,

BEIIIND, GOVERNMENT

M1'D_DLE SCHOOL   'I ..

BAGEIPALLI TOWN  I I "

 '  I KOLAR I>Ism_Ic'I:'iI_   RESPGNDENI

 M RUI )iE?AL¢\H, ADV.)

----¢-

'   C-RL.P IS FILED U/95.482 CRRC WITH A ?RAYER Ti}

 QL?AS§£ TEE ENTIRE PROCEESINGS IN cc NO.289:'O5 (PCR.2L='G5)

ON THE FILE OF "H-E IMFC., BAGEPALLI. AND SET ASEE THE

 ":'.;'.R[3ER IN c.C.2~Io.2s9:o5 ON 71% mg <3? THE JIvﬁ"C.,
 BAGE?ALLI ON 11.10.05 TAKING COGNIZANCE OF THE
" OF}*'ENCE Pzuzs 133 GP' N3. ACT AND ISSUE OF PROCESS TO Tm

PEITTTONER,

&_-Iv/\../\'



"l

TEES CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING;

J

In this petition the oetitioner has prayed for setting asi_c'le:._ti1le:    .

dated 11.10.2095 in ac. No. 28912005 on the ﬁleof Judigia:MéTgist£aie;:V  it

Class, Bagepalli, taking cognizance of the :'»offeztce,:pufiisl1alrle  

section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act (for shoiﬂtlie Act') V

process to the petitioner. it  .   ._ A V;
2. The respondent contends thatﬁi'1'e 'petitioner for eonsicieration

received issued a cheque on 02.i1l2_OQ4' Re.1,48,00G,/- in favour of her husband pa3?ee,--l:'A.{3. Sadananda Bhat presented the eheqee '"t'1'}rf:.tli€'-__ petitioner for encashment through his bankers and the same"oa:'i:e' tolitellfemmed with an endorsement that 'the cheque .un;;r2.tici" of ﬁelds'. On 09.05,2{)05 the fact of elieque waelllitttiniated to AG. Sadananda Bhat by his Sadananda Bhat got issued a lawyer's notice the Apetitioitee about the dishonour of the cheque and " 'deitzeoded to v.pey the amount due under the cheque. Thereaﬁet on 'is';eé_,20ﬁ$'.--'i<x.G. Sadananda Bhat died. On 30.05.2005 the petitioner got H it reply notice through his Iawyer denying his liability to pay the iooount due under the cheque. Aﬁer the demise of AG. Sadanancia Bhat the resgondent herein who is the wife and legal representative of the deeeaseé ﬁled 3 private criminal complaint against the petitioner under

4. Union cf India and another Vs. Becki Nandan Aggarwai, AIR 1992 so 96 Y "

4. Per contra Sn'. Rudraiah, ieamed ccvunsei for the respcta.€:ie;itL:'--.e:.4 contended that the respefmdent being the iegai representative o1£f.':tiecea.eVeii"

AG. Sadananda Biiat is entitled for possession, ifee0've13{ an.-ii rea;Ii§21tteﬁ_ the amount due under the cheque in question anciiis it-A a petition under Section 200 Cr.P.C. Re!itiaice...is piece---d_ ea decision. A

1. Punjab and Sind Ba:xktic*t¥g.eiv1gi;;tr Ltd., and others, (2001) frscc ?2;1' ij i

5. -side and perused the entire petition

6. The Ballkiiig, 3-..'uii)iic."-Fitiancial Institutions and Negotiable ..ej[';{s'eeeiexi:.§":Laws (amendrtieﬁtjﬁétct 1988 (Act No. 66f1988) has inserted cf section 138 to 142 in the Act with eﬁ°ect ﬁom ' it '=....»]." by the Negctiabie Instruments (Amendment and i_i't'_:«._Miscel1a1ze021:;=frmieiens) Act 2002 (Act no. 55!20{)2) Section 143 to 14? are" the Act. The abject of this amendment is to enhance the gcceptebiiity cf cheques in settlement of liabilities by making the drawer _1uiét'cv.ie' for penalties in case cf bouncing of cheques, with adequate OL/*v safeguards to prevent harassment of honest drawers. Section 138 speciﬁes the commission of offence and the ounishment. Sec. 139 speaks about oresumption in favour of holder of a cheque. Section 140 say-etlaét _.__ it drawer of cheque cannot take a defence in a trial that he had 'reeéotf to i believe when he issued the cheque that it will 'Sec; ' _ specifies the offences committed by companies and eikery person who "Wale. incharge of and responsible to the compan3%"feif the conduet_ of Section 142 orovides the grocedtiiefor the oitence. Section 143 specifies that ail offencee be tried by a Judicial Magistzate of Magstrete and empowers the courts 144 provides for the mode of service of Section--:l4;'3 ﬁ:'cvieles for taking evidence of the complaittettt "epeciﬁes that the contents of Banks slip or denotitilgithetotshonour of cheque presumed to be fact onleszﬁthe some dispgfotfed. Sec. 147 specifies that oﬁence 'made! the Act _;tsVcerrt:1jeut1da¥3le.

A VVTf,e~Tl1e..1jéley'a:it"eection for purpose of this case is Section 142(a) of " V ' the Act tl1e_.saitie'..ret1el as under:

__ " v.Scetion Z42: Ceglizance of Oﬁences W __ V1" Notetithstanding anything contained in the Code cf 1 "'V.VC£iiﬁ"mal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) it e}.:§no court shall take cognizance of any offence punishable under Section 138 except upon a complaint, in writing, aw'

12. Far the reasons stated above the petitien is harsh}; dismissed.

LRS;-'1'?062()68.

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court