Karnataka High Court
M/S Sgr 3S Consortium vs Mr Syed Zahid Ali on 8 August, 2023
Author: K.Natarajan
Bench: K.Natarajan
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC:27935
CRL.P No. 6463 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.NATARAJAN
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 6463 OF 2022
BETWEEN:
1. M/S SGR 3S CONSORTIUM
A PARTNERSHIP FIRM,
NO.432, I FLOOR, 15TH MAIN,
I BLOCK, 3RD STAGE,
BASAVESHWARANAGARA,
BENGALURU-560079
2. MR Y. SRINIVASA REDDY
S/O YERDDLA SAMBI REDDY,
R/AT NO.10-2-9, AND 249,
FLAT NO.108A, NASR APARTMENT,
INCOME TAX TOWER LANE, A.C GUARDS,
Digitally HYDERABAD-500004
signed by
CHAITHRA
A 3. MR Y RAVINDER REDDY
Location: S/O SAMMI REDDY,
HIGH
COURT OF R/AT NO.12-5-55/1, PH-1,
KARNATAKA SAMSKRUTHI HEAVEN, VIJAYAPURI,
TARNAKA, SECUNDERABAD-500017
4. MR SRINIVASA KONDAI
S/O RAMULU KONDAI,
R/AT NO.12-5-55/1, PH-1,
SAMSKRUTHI HEAVEN, VIJAYPURI,
TARNAKA, SECUNDERABAD-500017
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC:27935
CRL.P No. 6463 of 2022
5. MR B T SRINIVASA GOWDA
S/O THIMMAIAH GANGANNA,
NO.813/A, 1ST MAIN,
NGO LAYOUT, VRUSHABAVATHINAGARA,
BENGALURU-560079
6. MR G V RAJASHEKAR
S/O G K NARASIMHA RAO,
R/AT FLAT NO.11042
PRESTIGE WELLINGTON PARK,
JALAHALLI, BANGALORE-560013
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. J SUDHAKAR, ADVOCATE FOR P1;
SRI.ANIL BABU.C, ADVOCATE FOR P2 TO P6)
AND:
MR SYED ZAHID ALI
S/O SYED MOHAMMED,
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS,
R/AT NO.20, 1ST CROSS,
MILLERS ROAD, BENSON TOWN,
BANGALORE-560046
AT PRESENT STATIONED AT 3RD CROSS,
KUVEMPU BADAVANE, SATHIMANGALA ROAD,
WARD NO.9, CHAMARAJANAGARA.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. NAVEED AHMED, ADVOCATE)
THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C BY THE ADVOCATE
FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE
PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE PETITIONERS PENDING ON THE
FILE OF ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C.,
CHAMARAJANAGARA IN C.C.NO.29/2018 i.e., ANNEXURE-A
FOR ALLEGED OFFENCE U/S 138 OF N.I. ACT.
-3-
NC: 2023:KHC:27935
CRL.P No. 6463 of 2022
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING,
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
This petition is filed by the petitioners-accused Nos.1 to 6 under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashing of the criminal proceedings in C.C.No.29/2018 pending on the file of the Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Chamarajanagar (hereinafter referred to as 'trial Court') for the offences punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as 'N.I. Act')
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the respondent.
3. The case of the respondent-complainant before the trial Court is that the accused No.1 is a company. The other accused are the Directors of the company. They approached the complainant for loan for improving the business called M/s.SGR 3S Consortium which is a partnership firm and the complainant has paid -4- NC: 2023:KHC:27935 CRL.P No. 6463 of 2022 Rs.1,50,00,000/- by cash and subsequently as a security, the accused persons gave three cheques for Rs.50,00,000/- each and the accused failed to pay the amount. Therefore, the cheques were presented before the Axis Bank which came to be dishonoured. Hence, a complaint under Section 138 of N.I. Act read with Section 200 Cr.P.C. was filed before the trial Court and cognizance was taken and summons was issued which is under challenge.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that the respondent who is the complainant has stolen the three cheques from the company and has misused the cheques. Learned counsel further submits that the complainant presented one cheque at Bengaluru which came to be dishonoured. A complaint came to be filed before the Additional CMM Court, Mayo Hall which has ended in acquittal and in order to prove that the cheques were stolen, the petitioners also filed a complaint to the police and a case was registered against the respondent -5- NC: 2023:KHC:27935 CRL.P No. 6463 of 2022 and charge sheet was also filed against him which reveals the complainant committing theft of the cheques. Therefore, there is no legally recoverable debt in order to file the complaint under Section 138 of N.I. Act and the continuation of proceedings is nothing but abuse of process of law. Hence, prayed for quashing of the criminal proceedings.
5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent strongly objected the petition and has contended that merely because one cheque was presented and complaint was filed which ended in acquittal, there is no bar or nothing prevented the complainant from filing another complaint for dishonour of another cheque and if at all, if any ground is available to the accused, it has to be urged and contested before the trial Court for taking defence. At this stage, the proceedings cannot be quashed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. The amount was paid by the complainant by cash for improving the business where the accused No.1 was a company and accused No.3 has -6- NC: 2023:KHC:27935 CRL.P No. 6463 of 2022 signed the cheque. There are other accused persons who are partners of the firm. Therefore, they are jointly and severally liable to pay the amount to the respondent and they have committed offence under Section 138 of N.I. Act. Therefore, prayed for dismissal of the petition.
6. Having heard the arguments, perused the records. The contention of the respondent-complainant is, that for improving business of the petitioners firm, they approached the complainant and obtained loan of Rs.1,50,00,000/- and as a security for refund, the petitioners have issued three cheques and out of the three cheques, one cheque has been presented at Bengaluru where it was dishonoured and a complaint has been filed under Section 138 of N.I. Act before the XIV ACMM, Mayo Hall, Bengaluru in C.C.No.51054/2016. Admittedly, in the said case this petitioners were acquitted by the CMM Court.
7. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that he is not having any instructions whether the -7- NC: 2023:KHC:27935 CRL.P No. 6463 of 2022 acquittal has been challenged before the High Court or not. However, it is contended that merely one case has ended in acquittal, it does not bar the respondent- complainant to file another complaint and maintain the same against the petitioners.
8. The contention of the petitioners that merely because one case has ended in acquittal, it does not mean that another case has to be ended in acquittal. The fact of the case being one and the same but the matter was dealt with the Court by trial and therefore, come to the conclusion that it is not proved by the complainant. Such being the case, without going for trial, the Court cannot come to conclusion that the case was false one and should be quashed at threshold.
9. The another contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners that in order to prove that cheque was stolen, a complaint came to be filed against the respondent in Ashoknagar Police Station. In this regard FIR has been filed in Crime No.368/2014 for the -8- NC: 2023:KHC:27935 CRL.P No. 6463 of 2022 offences punishable under Sections 342, 384, 504 and 506 of IPC. The police after investigation filed the charge sheet only for 342, 504 and 506 of IPC but not for either 384 or 379 of IPC in order to show that there was extortion of the cheque and not stealing of the cheque by the complainant. Such being the case, mere filing of a complaint cannot be a ground for exonerating the charges against the petitioners by quashing the complaint under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.
10. The matter requires detailed consideration by the trial Court and what are the defence available has to be taken before the trial Court. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioners have not made out any good ground for quashing of the criminal proceedings.
11. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE CA List No.: 1 Sl No.: 38