Karnataka High Court
M/S Sgr 3S Consortium vs Sri Syed Ali on 1 June, 2017
Author: K.N.Phaneendra
Bench: K. N. Phaneendra
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF JUNE, 2017
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K. N. PHANEENDRA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 3415/2017
BETWEEN
1. M/S. SGR 3S CONSORTIUM,
A PARTNERSHIP FIRM,
HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE,
AT NO.432,1ST FLOOR, 15TH MAIN ROAD,
1ST BLOCK, 3RD STAGE,
BASAVESHWARANAGAR,
BENGALURU - 560 079.
2. SRI. Y. SRINIVASA REDDY,
S/O YERDDLA SAMBI REDDY,
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,
R/AT NO.10-2-9 AND 249,
FLAT NO.108A, NASR APARTMENTS,
INCOME TAX TOWERS LANE,
AC GUARDS HYDERABAD - 500 004.
3. SRI. S. RAVINDER REDDY,
S/O S. SAMMI REDDY, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS
R/AT NO.12-5-55/1,
PH-1, SAMSKRUTHI HEAVEN,
VIJAYPURI, TARNAKA,
SECUNDERABAD - 500 017.
4. SRI. SRINIVAS KONDAI,
S/O RAMULU KONDAI,
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS,
R/AT NO. 12-5-55/1,
PH-2, SAMSKRUTHI HEAVEN,
VIJAYAPURI, TARANAKA,
SECUNDERABAD - 500 017.
2
5. SRI. G. V. RAJASHEKAR,
S/O G. K. NARASIMHA RAO,
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS,
R/AT FLAT NO.11042,
PRESTIGE WELLINGTON PARK,
JALAHALLI, BENGALURU - 560 013.
... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. J. SUDHAKAR, ADV.)
AND
1. SRI. SYED ALI,
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS,
S/O AYED MOHAMMED,
R/AT NO.20, 1ST CROSS,
MILLER ROAD,
BENGALURU - 560 046
2. SRI. B. T. SRINIVAS GOWDA,
S/O THIMMAIAH GANGANNA,
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
R/AT NO.813/A, 1ST MAIN ROAD,
MGM LAYOUT, VRUSHABAVATHI NAGAR,
KAMALANAGAR,
BENGALURU - 560 079 ... RESPONDENTS
THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 CR.P.C PRAYING THAT
THIS HON'BLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO QUASH THE
ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.51054/2016 PENDING
BEFORE THE XIV A.C.M.M., MAYOHALL UNIT, BENGALURU.
THIS CRL.P COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY,
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners. Perused the records.
3
2. A person by name Syed Ali, the first respondent herein lodged a private complaint in PCR No.53013/2015 and thereafter, a case is registered in CC No.51054/2016 for the offence punishable under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act against the Company by M/s.SGR 3S Consortium and made all the partners as parties. The petitioners are the accused in the said case.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners strenuously contends that the cheques which are involved in the case as mentioned in the private complaint by the first respondent are all stolen by the complainant. Therefore, a complaint was lodged before the jurisdictional police and in fact the police have investigated the matter and filed a charge sheet and the same is pending. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that there is no transaction between the complainant and the first respondent Company. It is alleged that the respondents 2 to 5 are the persons alleged to have been issued the cheques in 4 their individual capacity not as partners of the first respondent firm. Therefore, the complainant should have gone against individually that is against the persons who have actually issued the cheques. The learned counsel contended that notice issued by the complainant after dishonour of the cheques by the concerned Bank, in the said notice, the mode of payment and cheque number have been mentioned. But subsequently another corrigendum has been issued by way of second notice wherein the mode of payment and cheque numbers were also different. Therefore, the complainant cannot blow hot and cold in the complaint as there is serious contradictions in the notices issued. On the above said grounds, the learned counsel seeks for quashing of the entire proceedings.
4. On careful perusal of the complaint averments, the complainant has specifically stated about the transaction between himself and the first accused Company and at paragraph 3, it is further stated that the accused persons have issued the cheque on behalf 5 of the partnership firm. Therefore, all the accused persons including the Company are liable under the provisions of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Therefore, there are rival contentions between the complainant and the accused. There is no conclusive proof available to the court with regard to the stealing of the cheques and there is no conclusive materials to show that the cheques were individually given by the accused persons to the complainant. All these material factual differences between the parties have to be established during the course of the trial before the trial Court by adducing evidence. This court by appreciating the entire materials on record or taking the documents produced by the complainant cannot decide the matter.
In the above said circumstances, I do not find any strong reasons to interfere with the proceedings pending before the trial Court. Hence, the petition deserves to be dismissed. There is no need to issue any notice to the respondent. At this stage, there is no ground made out to admit the petition. Hence, the petition is 6 dismissed. Liberty is given to the accused persons to establish their defence taken up, before the trial Court.
Sd/-
JUDGE PL*