Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

4. Learned Counsel for the petitioners has mainly contended that the cheque alleged to have been issued by the respondent was drawn on State Bank of Mysore Vontikoppal branch, but the Central Government as per order issued in the year 2017, merged the State Bank of Mysore with State Bank of India. There is circular issued by the RBI that the cheque issued by any person through State Bank of Mysore is invalid and stale cheque. Therefore, on that ground, the proceedings cannot be sustained. Hence, prayed for quashing the same.

5. Per contra, Sri Kiran S Javali, learned Senior Counsel for respondent, has seriously objected the petition and contended that as per the document produced by the accused regarding the circular issued by the RBI, it is stated, dishonour of cheque for want of sufficiency fund, but not for the reason that the cheque was stale or invalid cheque. The case is full of mixed question of facts and law and therefore, the bank manager is required to be examined before the Court in order to say that whether the cheque was issued by the drawer in favour of drawee and when the cheque was post dated cheque, it is bounden duty of the bank to honour the cheque. The Bank has dishonoured the cheque for insufficiency of funds but not on the ground of non existence of State Bank of Mysore and the bank was merged with State Bank of India. Hence, prayed for dismissing the petition.

6. Having heard the arguments of learned Counsel for the parties on both sides, perused the records.

7. It is not in dispute that the respondent is said to be the partner of accused No.1, which is the hospital, run by the firm at Mysuru. The respondent is said to be invested huge amount in the business and later, the respondent said to be came out of the firm and for discharging liability of the firm and investment made, issued a cheque to accused Nos.1 and 2. Of course, the Central Government has merged State Bank of Mysore with State Bank of India in the year 2017 and all the accounts in the State Bank of Mysore has been transferred to the State Bank of India. However, there is no order that the cheque issued by the drawer in favour of the drawee shall hold good and valid for the purpose of presentation of same before the bank for encashment. The petitioners have produced RBI guidelines, but the said guidelines states that the complainant has to be intimated by the banker stating that cheque pertaining to State Bank of Mysore has been returned with an endorsement that the cheque is a stale cheque or invalid cheque. However, in this case, the cheque was dishonoured for insufficiency of funds, but not for the reason that the bank was merged with State Bank of India. Therefore, it is a mixed question of facts and law. The complainant and accused required to examine bank Manager before the Magistrate in order to prove that the cheque was stale or invalid cheque or valid cheque. The statement of accounts of the petitioners- accused were produced and the respondent invested crores of amount in the petitioner's business. Therefore, this Court cannot go into and investigate the matter for the purpose of quashing criminal proceedings. It is a clear case that the petitioners require to face trial in order to prove their contention that the cheque was dishonoured not for insufficiency of funds but for stale cheque or invalid cheque. Therefore, the petition is devoid of merit and liable to be dismissed.