H Manjunath S/O H Malleshappa, vs S G Manjunath S/O. Gurunath Bhat, on 13 August, 2013

[Cites 5, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

H Manjunath S/O H Malleshappa, vs S G Manjunath S/O. Gurunath Bhat, on 13 August, 2013

Bench: N. Ananda

                            1




           IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
             CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD
      DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF AUGUST 2013
                         BEFORE
         THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N. ANANDA
           CRIMINAL PETITION No.10176/2012

BETWEEN:

H MANJUNATH S/O H MALLESHAPPA,
AGE: 33 YEARS,
PROP. SREE VENKATESHWARA TRANSPORT,
SVT COMPLEX, HOSPET-BELLARY ROAD,
HOSPET, DIST: BELLARY.              ... PETITIONER

(By Sri.HEGDE, NEERALGI & PATIL, ADVS.)

AND

S G MANJUNATH S/O. GURUNATH BHAT,
AGE: 36 YEARS,
PROP. AKSHATA MINERALS,
HOSPET-BELLARY ROAD,
HOSPET, DIST: BELLARY.                    .... RESPONDENT

(By Sri.M B GUNDAWADE, ADV.)


     THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S. 482 CR.P.C.,
SEEKING TO QUASH THE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C NO.2746/2011
ON THE FILE OF ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE & JMFC, HOSPET AND
ETC.

      THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
                                  2




                            ORDER

The petitioner is arrayed as accused in C.C.No.2746/2011 registered at the instance of complaint filed by the respondent for offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 468 and 471 IPC.

2. The petitioner had filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act against respondent in C.C.No.150/2011, which is pending trial, wherein, respondent herein is the accused.

3. It is the contention of respondent that petitioner (complainant in C.C.No.150/2011) has forged the endorsement issued by the bank and the cheque is not supported by consideration as petitioner has committed breach of contract.

It is also contended by respondent that petitioner had received cheques for supply of iron ore and also for transportation of iron ore. The petitioner has not fulfilled his 3 contractual obligations. The petitioner having retained one of the cheques has initiated a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

4. In C.C.No.150/2011, pending trial for an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the respondent herein is arrayed as accused. It is open to the accused to establish that the endorsement issued by the bank is a forged document; petitioner has misused the cheque issued to him; petitioner has not fulfilled his contractual obligations and dishonored cheque is not supported by consideration.

If respondent establishes his defense in C.C.No.150/2011; if it is held that endorsement issued by the bank is a forged document and dishonored cheque is not supported by consideration, respondent is at liberty to initiate appropriate criminal action against petitioner. In the circumstances, there are no reasons to maintain parallel proceedings in relation to same transaction between the 4 parties. The parallel proceedings may result in conflicting decisions. Therefore, continuation of impugned proceedings would be abuse of process of law.

5. In the result, I pass the following:

ORDER The petition is accepted. The impugned proceedings are quashed. However, liberty is reserved to respondent to establish his defense in C.C.No.150/2011. In C.C.No.150/2011, if the trial court were to held that endorsement relied upon by the complainant is a forged document; cheque is not supported by consideration for failure of complainant to fulfil his contractual obligation, the respondent herein (accused in C.C.No.150/2011) is at liberty to initiate appropriate criminal proceedings against complainant in C.C.No.150/2011 (petitioner herein).

SD/-

JUDGE Np/-

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court