Karnataka High Court
Sri R Prabhakar Reddy vs M/S Abhideep Developers Pvt Ltd on 21 January, 2021
Author: H.P.Sandesh
Bench: H.P. Sandesh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 21st DAY OF JANUARY, 2021
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P. SANDESH
CRIMINAL PETITION No.3906 OF 2020
BETWEEN
1. SRI R. PRABHAKAR REDDY
S/O. N. RAMA REDDY,
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,
CHAIRMAN,
SAI CITY INTERNATIONAL SCHOOL,
526, 1ST FLOOR, KORAMANGALA,
80 FEET ROAD,
OPP: NDDB QUARTERS GATE,
8TH BLOCK, KORAMANGALA,
BENGALURU - 560 095.
2. SMT. DEEPA S.
W/O. MR. R. PRABHAKAR REDDY,
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
SECRETARY,
SAI CITY INTERNATIONAL SCHOOL,
526, 1ST FLOOR, KORAMANGALA,
80 FEET ROAD,
OPP: NDDB QUARTERS GATE,
8TH BLOCK, KORAMANGALA,
BENGALURU - 560 095.
3. SAI CITY INTERNATIONAL SCHOOL
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT,
MR. R. PRABHAKAR REDDY,
S/O. N. RAMA REDDY,
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,
RESIDING AT No.526, 1ST FLOOR,
KORAMANGALA, 80 FEET ROAD,
OPP: NDDB QUARTERS GATE,
8TH BLOCK, KORAMANGALA,
BENGALURU - 560 095.
... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI SHIVAPRASAD Y.S., ADVOCATE)
2
AND
M/S. ABHIDEEP DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD.
A COMPANY, REGISTERED
UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT,
REPRESENTED
BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR,
SRI SADANANDA R.S.,
S/O. LATE RAMACHANDRA SHERVEGAR,
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,
RESIDING AT 'SRI ANANTHA KRISHNA',
No.101, 1ST FLOOR, MARY HILL,
MANGALURU - 574 142.
... RESPONDENT
(RESPONDENT SERVED)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF
CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE
PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.No.834 of 2018, PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS V COURT, MANGALURU,
DAKSHINA KANNADA, FOR THE ALLEGED OFFENCE PUNISHABLE
UNDER SECTION 138 OF THE NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENT ACT.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners.
Respondent though served, remained unrepresented.
2. This petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. praying this Court to quash the entire proceedings in CC No.834/2018 pending on the file of the Judicial Magistrate First Class, V Court, Mangaluru, Dakshina Kannada, for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. 3
3. The factual matrix of the case is that, the petitioners herein who have been arrayed in the complaint as accused Nos.1 to 3 obtained an amount of Rs.50.00 lakhs from the respondent. In discharge of the debt, they issued two cheques for Rs.25.00 lakhs each. When the said cheques were presented, they were dishonoured. Therefore, C.C. No.610/2017 and C.C. No.611/2017 were initiated against these petitioners.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that in the said two cases, the amount was paid and the complainant who was present before the Court made the submission that he has received the entire cheque amount and therefore, he is not willing to prosecute the case. As a result, C.C. No.611/2017 was closed on 04.12.2019. The other case in C.C. No.610/2017 was also closed on 03.01.2020. The learned counsel also brought to the notice of this Court that in the sworn statement of the respondent, he has categorically averred in his affidavit that two cases were initiated against the petitioners herein and the petitioners herein have not chosen to appear before the Court and hence, non-bailable warrant was issued. When the respondent was pursuing the non-bailable warrant, these petitioners went to the house of respondent on 05.02.2018 and 4 handed over two cheques dated 05.02.2018 and 09.02.2018 promising to repay the amount. This affidavit was filed on 03.04.2019.
5. Having perused the sworn statement of PW.1, it is clear that when these petitioners did not appear before the Trial Court in C.C. No.610/2017 and C.C. No.611/2017, on the threat of non-bailable warrant, they went to the house of the respondent and issued these two cheques. The respondent, in spite of service of notice, has not appeared before this Court and has not even engaged any counsel. These proceedings were initiated against Rs.50.00 lakhs, which was given and subsequently, on 04.12.2019 and 03.01.2020, the earlier cases were closed at the instance of the respondent herein on the ground that he made the statement that he is not willing to continue the proceedings. These cheques are issued in respect of earlier liability. Therefore, the question of continuing the proceedings against the petitioners does not arise. If it is continued, it amounts to abuses of process and the same would result in mis-carriage of justice.
5
6. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the following:
Order The criminal petition is allowed. The proceedings are hereby quashed.
Sd/-
JUDGE mv