Sri. T Karthik Raja vs Sri. V M Prabhakar
2021 Latest Caselaw 458 Kant

                            :1:



 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

      DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2021

                         BEFORE

      THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.SOMASHEKAR

         CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 580 OF 2017

BETWEEN
Sri T. Karthik Raja
Aged about 38 years
S/o Thyagaraj
A.K. International
No.66, 2nd Right Cross
Puttappa Colony
New Thippasandra
Bengaluru - 560 075.                       ... Petitioner
(By Sri. Abhinav .R, Advocate)

AND
Sri V.M. Prabhakar
Aged about 48 years
S/o Late V.K. Madhavan
M/s. Maruthi Ginger Traders
Main Road, Kudige
Kushalnagar Hobli
Somwarpet Taluk
Kodagu District - 571 234.                ... Respondent

(By Sri V.R. Sarathy, Advocate)

     This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure, praying to quash the
proceedings in PCR No.117/2016 (C.C.No.433/2016) on
the file of Civil Judge and JMFC, Kushalnagar at
Annexure-A as well as the complaint filed by the
                             :2:



Respondent in PCR No.117/2016 dated 09.06.2016 before
the Civil Judge and JMFC, Kushalnagar at Bangalore vide
Annexure-B.

      This Criminal Petition coming on for Admission, this
day, the court made the following:


                         ORDER

This petition is filed by petitioner - Sri T.Karthik

Raja/accused seeking quashing of the criminal

proceedings in C.C.No.433/2016 arising out of PCR

No.117/2016 for the offence punishable under Section

138 of the N.I.Act r/w Section 420 of IPC which is pending

before the Court of Civil Judge and JMFC, Kushalnagar.

2. Heard Sri Abhinav.R, learned counsel for the

petitioner and Sri V.R.Sarathy, learned counsel for the

respondent. Perused the materials available on record.

3. It is transpired in the criminal prosecution

initiated by the respondent/complainant Sri

V.M.Prabhakar against the petitioner/accused in the

aforesaid private complaint that the complainant is a

reputed grower, trader and merchant of quality green

ginger at Kudige, Kushalnagar Hobli, Somwarpet Taluk,

Kodagu District. Coming to know about the same, the

accused came down to Kudige and started to deal with the

complainant and was regularly purchasing green ginger,

from the complainant at Kudige and used to transport the

same, at his own costs and consequences in the lorries

and vehicles belonging to him, with a clear understanding

and assuring the complainant that the RMC invoices,

Bills, permits would be the concern and responsibility of

the accused and he would look after the same. The same

has been narrated in the complaint filed by the

complainant against accused - T.Karthik Raja.

4. On different dates, the petitioner / accused had

come to Kudige and had purchased green ginger of 'Rigodi'

variety at a specified rate for each bag and towards the

payment of the amount, the accused issued cheque dated

03.03.2016, bearing No.000088 which was drawn on

Bank of Baroda, No.274, V.R.Manor, 6th Main Bus Stop,

Bangalore-560038 in favour of the complainant, informing

him that said cheque for Rs.15,00,000/- would be

honoured by the said Bank, on presentation of the said

cheque on the due date mentioned in the said cheque or

on subsequent date.

5. Thereafter, it is stated that to the utter surprise of

the complainant, he received a notice from the accused,

making false statements and demanding to return back

the cheque from Bank of Baroda which was allegedly given

as PDC cheque. It is further transpired in the complaint

that to the utter shock of complainant, he received

another notice from the accused, claiming that the

accused had been making payments through the Canara

Bank account of the complainant and as well as by cash

on various occasions on account basis and that the

accused had allegedly requested the complainant to

submit his bills supported by RMC permits in the name of

the accused. However, the complainant is alleged to have

failed to accept the alleged request of the accused for a

long time. The accused was unable to reconcile his

account as to understand the dues receivable or payable

towards the supply by the complainant continued till the

end of February 2016. It is further alleged that the

complainant had allegedly supplied due to alleged

application of improper bags used for packing with alleged

inadequate mess in addition to the alleged reported receipt

of material in fungus formed and that cheque which was

allegedly given as security at the commencement of the

transaction had been revoked and the complainant states

that the said statements made by accused are all false,

tissues of imagination, made only to dupe the

complainant of his money and also of the green ginger

purchased by the accused, from the complainant.

6. Further the complainant presented the said

cheque which was issued by the accused towards the legal

liability for encashment, to Canara Bank, Branch Kudige,

Kushalnagar Hobli, Somwarpet Taluk, Kodagu District

and to his utter surprise, the said cheque was returned by

the said Bank, with an Return Memo of Canara Bank,

Madikeri Main Branch, Kodagu District, to the effect

'Payment Stopped by the drawer' thereby meaning that

the accused had deliberately and intentionally stopped the

payment of amount due to the complainant and also that

there was no sufficient amount in the account of the

accused in the said Bank to honour the cheque mentioned

above.

7. Subsequent to dishonouring of the cheque, the

complainant issued legal notice to the accused under

RPAD calling upon him to pay the amount covered under

the above mentioned cheque. The accused gave reply to

the notice sent by the complainant and he failed to pay

the amount due to the complainant, despite of notice

issued. Subsequently, after following of the requisite

condition under Section 138 of N.I.Act, the complainant

initiated private complaint as referred above before the

Court of Civil Judge and JMFC, Kushalnagar.

8. Subsequent to initiation of the criminal

prosecution against the accused before the court below,

the complainant filed affidavit in lieu of his sworn

statement to affirm the complaint averments made against

the accused relating to bouncing of cheque with banking

endorsement. On perusal of the materials on record

relating to the said private complaint against the accused

under Section 138 of the N.I.Act, the court below having

found prima-facie materials against the accused, issued

process against the accused and registered the case

against in C.C.No.433/2016 arising out of PCR

No.117/2016, for the offence punishable under Section

138 of the N.I.Act r/w Section 420 of IPC.

9. Learned counsel for the petitioner addressed his

arguments by referring to the judgment rendered by the

Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in (2014) 12 SCC 539

(INDUS AIRWAYS PVT.LTD AND OTHERS VS. MAGNUM

AVIATION PVT. LTD AND ANOTHER). In this judgment

the Hon'ble Apex Court has dealt with "Debt, Financial

and Monetary Laws - Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 -

S.138 - "Debt or other liability" - Meaning of - Held, means

legally enforceable debt or liability - Advance payment for

supply of goods not supplied not covered - Words and

Phrases - "Debt or other liability"

10. In this judgment, learned counsel for the

petitioner has mainly taken me through paras 4 and 5 of

the judgment which reads as under:

"4. the purchasers challenged the order issuing summons in a revision petition under Section 397 of the code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The Additional Sessions Judge, after hearing the parties, allowed the revision petition vide order dated 2.9.2008 and quashed the process issued by the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate.

5. The supplier challenged the order of the Additional Sessions Judge in a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. before the High Court. The High Court allowed the petition, set aside the order of the Additional Sessions Judge and restored the order of the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate issuing process to the purchasers."

11. Further, in this judgment, reference has been

also made to the case reported in 2006 CRI.L.J. 4330

(KER) SUPPLY HOUSE VS. ULLAS wherein it is held as

under:

"In that case, the post-dated cheque was issued by the accused along with the order for supply of goods. The supply of goods was not made by the complainant. The accused first instructed the bank to stop payment against the cheque and then requested the complainant not to present the cheque as he had not supplied the goods. The cheque was dishonoured. The Single Judge of the Kerala High Court held:

"... Ext.P-1 cheque cannot be stated to be one issued in discharge of the liability to the tune of the amount covered by it, which was really issued, as is revealed by Ext.D-1 as the price amount for 28 numbers of mixies, which the complainant had not supplied...."

12. Therefore, these two reliances are squarely

applicable to the present case wherein there was a

transaction in between the complainant and the accused.

The cheque issued by him was only for the purpose of

security, but the complainant has presented the cheque

with his bank for the purpose of encashment, but the said

cheque came to be returned with bank endorsement.

Subsequent to the receipt of the bank endorsement, the

complainant initiated the criminal prosecution against the

accused by filing the private complaint as above.

13. It is contended by the petitioner's counsel that

the trial court has committed an error in noticing the fact

that even prior to the presentation of the cheque, the

petitioner had sent communications informing the

complainant that stop payment instructions have been

issued as the cheque was not issued for discharge of any

debt or liability. Therefore, the question of complainant

presenting the said cheque for encashment by alleging

that the same were issued for discharge of a debt or

liability does not arise at all. This contention is taken by

the learned counsel for the petitioner seeking intervention

of this Court to exercise the power under Section 482 of

Cr.P.C, if not, there shall be miscarriage of justice to the

gravamen of the accused.

14. It is further contended that the petitioner has

sent as many as two communications informing the

respondent/complainant that the cheque in question had

not been issued in relation to any debt or liability and that

they were given at the initial stages of the transaction. The

said correspondence is not disputed by the respondent

and no response was given to the said communication.

Further, the complaint does not indicate as to what is the

actual liability as no documents are produced showing

any outstanding amounts and so also, reconciliated

accounts are also not produced. He further contends that

the averments made in the complaint do not even prima-

facie indicate the punishing of any offence and

consequently, the proceedings are required to be quashed.

On this premise, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks

for quashing of the criminal proceedings pending before

the Court below by considering the grounds urged in this

petition.

15. Per contra, Sri V.R.Sarathy, learned counsel for

the respondent in this petition has taken me through the

cause notice issued by the complainant - Sri

V.M.Prabhakar to the accused. The contentions taken in

this cause notice are in conformity with the averments

made in the private complaint filed by the respondent

against the accused. Though the counsel for the

respondent has referred the letter head of AK

International as per Annexure-C dated 15.03.2016

addressed to Mr.V.M.Prabhakara, whereas in the subject

column it is stated as request for submission of RMC bills

from October 2015 to February 2016 to regularize

account. In last line, it is stated that the cheque given as

security at the commencement of the transaction is being

revoked.

16. But subsequent to the issuance of the cheque by

the accused, he has made some transaction in a letter

correspondence and consequently, the cheque issued was

returned with a return memo of Canara Bank, Madikeri

Main Branch, Kodagu District to the effect 'payment

stopped by drawer' thereby the accused had deliberately

and intentionally stopped the payment of the amount due

to the complainant.

17. It is contended that respondent/complainant is

a reputed grower, trader and merchant of quality green

ginger at Kudige, Kushalnagar Hobli, Somwarpet Taluk,

Kodagu District and on coming to know the same, the

accused came down to Kudige and started to deal with the

complainant and was regularly purchasing green ginger

from the complainant at Kudige and used to transport the

same at his own costs and consequences in his lorries and

vehicles, with a clear understanding and assuring that

RMC invoices, bills, permits would be the concern and

responsibility of accused and to look after the same and

whenever he was unable to come over to Kudige,

personally, the accused wanted the complainant to supply

the green ginger to him. These are all the facts that have

been narrated in the cause notice dated 25.04.2016

issued by complainant to the petitioner. In this notice it is

also stated that to the utter shock of the complainant, he

received another notice dated 15.3.2016 claiming that the

accused had been making payments through the Canara

Bank account of complainant. It is denied in the notice

that the cheque was issued as PDC cheque as claimed by

the accused. However, this cause notice was issued by

the counsel of the complainant and thereafter, the

criminal prosecution came to be registered by filing private

complaints due to dishonour of the cheque issued by the

accused. Therefore, it is contended by the respondent's

counsel that the facts as narrated in the cause notice and

so also, the reply notice made by the accused have to be

subjected to test and also subjected to cross-examination

under the relevant provisions of the Indian Evidence Act.

Therefore, at this stage, it cannot be arrived at a

conclusion that there are no prima-facie materials against

the accused to constitute the offence and even for the

offence under Section 138 of the N.I.Act relating to

bouncing of cheque in a banking endorsement as

"payment stopped by drawer". For initiation of the

complaint against the accused to prosecute the case it is

to be termed as civil in nature and after that it is to be

criminal in nature, if any, punishment is issued by the

competent authority having jurisdiction. But cognizance

has to be taken, it is only under Section 142 of the

N.I.Act. But the offence under Section 138 of the N.I.Act,

though it is dishonouring of the cheque, but it is dealt

with a dual capacity civil as well as criminal in nature, but

it is only depending upon to proceed with the case against

the accused and so also, facilitating the evidence by the

complainant who initiated private complaint against the

accused by complying the requisite condition under

Section 138 of N.I.Act which is pre-cognizance and

thereafter as post cognizance. But in this case, the pre-

cognizance has been complied by issuing cause notice to

pay the amount covered by the cheque which has been

returned and after reply notice received by the accused,

that the cognizance it has been complied for requisite

condition as under Section 138 of the N.I.Act and

initiation of criminal prosecution against the accused.

Thereafter, even either pre-cognizance or post cognizance

it is a cognizance of that power and also taken which is

vested with the judicial Magistrate having a jurisdiction to

deal with the matters. But in the instant case, on

compliance of the requisite condition of Section 138 of the

N.I.Act that the complainant has initiated the criminal

prosecution against the accused for the offence

punishable under Section 138 of the N.I.Act. Unless the

material evidence in terms of list of documents filed by the

complainant in his private complaint and so also,

furnishing of list witnesses on his behalf and unless all

these documents and witnesses are subjected to

examination on the part of the complainant and subjected

to test, it cannot be said that there are no prima-facie

materials against the accused seeking to exercise the

power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashing of the

criminal proceedings initiated against the accused. On

this premise, learned counsel for the respondent seeking

for dismissal of all these petitions filed by the

petitioner/accused, whereby accused is required to facing

of trial and the list of documents have to be subjected to

test and also list of witnesses have to be examined but

only logically it cannot be come to conclusion that there

are no prima-facie materials against the accused for the

offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I.Act. On

these grounds, learned counsel seeks for dismissal of the

petitions filed by the petitioner/accused.

18. In this backdrop of the contentions advanced by

the learned counsel for the parties, it is relevant to refer to

Section 142 of the NI Act, 1881. This section deals with

cognizance of offences, which reads thus:

             "142.      Cognizance         of    offences.--
      Notwithstanding anything contained in                 the

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974)--

(a) no court shall take cognizance of any offence punishable under Section 138 except upon a complaint, in writing, made by the Payee or, as the case may be, the holder in due course of the cheque;

(b) such complaint is made within one month of the date on which the cause of action arises under clause (c) of the proviso to section 138:

Provided that the cognizance of a complaint may be taken by the Court after the prescribed period, if the complainant satisfies the Court that he had sufficient cause for not making a complaint within such period.

(c) no court inferior to that of a Metropolitan Magistrate or a Judicial Magistrate

of the first class shall try any offence punishable under Section 138."

The offences under Section 138 of the NI Act shall be

enquired into and tried only by a court within its local

jurisdiction. There is no dispute about the provision of

Section 142 of the NI Act. But cognizance has arisen for

offences under Section 138 of the NI Act, twice. Firstly,

the pre-cognizance, that is soon after receipt of a banking

memo to the effect that the cheque was returned or

bounced within the period of limitation when the

complaint was filed as contemplated under Section 138 of

the NI Act before the Judicial Magistrate having

jurisdiction.

Secondly, upon failure of the drawer to pay the

money and even notice has been issued for compliance of

the requisite condition under Section 138 of the NI Act,

then the liability of the drawer for being prosecuted for the

offences, arises.

According to Section 142 of the NI Act, no Court

shall take notice of any offence which is regarded

punishable under the provisions mentioned in

Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881

unless in a complaint which is in writing made by the

holder of the cheque. However, the complainant has

followed all requisite conditions of Section 138 of the NI

Act to initiate criminal prosecution against the accused.

The same can be seen from the material available on

record.

Whereas the complainant has initiated criminal

prosecution against the accused for the offences

punishable under Section 138 of the NI Act, and the

complainant himself has alleged in his complaint that the

cheque was dishonoured due to want of sufficient amount

in the account. But in the instant case, the Bank had

issued a memo to the effect of stopping of payment. Even

if the payment was stopped as disclosed in the memo

issued by the Bank, then the cause of action has arisen

for complying with the requisite condition under Section

138 of the NI Act. As once the cause of action has arisen,

the limitation will begin to run. But in the instant case,

the criminal prosecution has to be launched by the

complainant within the stipulated period for prosecuting

the case against the accused under Section 138 of the NI

Act.

19. Whereas the learned counsel for the respondent

Shri V.R. Sarathy has facilitated the judgment rendered

by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of V.

RAVI KUMAR vs. STATE REPRESENTED BY INSPECTOR

OF POLICE, DISTRICT CRIME BRANCH, SALEM, TAMIL

NADU AND OTHERS (2019 (14) SCC 568). In this

judgment, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has dealt in detail

relating to the provision of Sections 154, 156, 200 to 204

and Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. In this reliance, the

relevant portion reads thus:

"24. Exercise of the inherent power of the High Court under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. It is neither proper nor permissible for the Court to lay down any straitjacket formula for regulating the inherent power of the High Court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.

25. Power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. might be exercised to prevent abuse of the process of law, but only when, the allegations, even if true, would not constitute an offence and/or were frivolous and vexatious on their face.

26. Where the accused seeks quashing of the FIR, invoking inherent jurisdiction of the High Court, it is wholly impermissible for the High Court to enter into the factual arena to adjudge the correctness of the allegations in the complaint. Reference may be made to the decision of this Court, inter alia, in State of Punjab v. Subhash Kumar and Ors (2004) 13 SCC 437 and Janata Dal v. H.S. Chowdhary (1992) 4 SCC 305."

In this judgment, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has

made an observation that exercise of inherent power of the

High Court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. would

depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. In

the instant case, the complainant had initiated a private

complaint against the accused for committing an offence

under Section 138 of the NI Act wherein the accused had

issued cheque in order to pay the amount under the

transaction that took place between the complainant and

the accused. But in the instant case, on presentation of

the cheque, the same was returned with a bank

endorsement effecting to stop payment. Then, cause of

action has arisen to proceed for criminal prosecution

against the accused. It is relevant to refer to the

judgment in the case of (A.R. RADHA KRISHNA vs.

DASARI DEEPTHI AND OTHERS (2019) 15 SCC 550),

wherein it reveals from the footnote as under:

"Exercise of inherent power - Petition for quashing

prosecution of Director of company under Sections 138

and 141, NI Act - Factors to be examined by High Court,

summarized - On facts, quashment against Directors set

aside, and proceedings restored."

In the said judgment, the Hon'ble Supreme Court

has dealt with the said issue at paragraph 7 wherein it is

held as under:

"7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and carefully scrutinizing the record, we are of the considered opinion that the High Court was not justified in allowing the quashing petitions by invoking its power under S.482, Cr.P.C. In a case pertaining to an offence under Section 138 and Section 141 of the Act, the law requires that the complaint must contain a specific averment that the Director was in charge of, and responsible for, the conduct of the company's business at the time when the offence was committed. The High Court, in deciding a quashing petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., must consider whether the averment made in the complaint is sufficient or if some

unimpeachable evidence has been brought on record which leads to the conclusion that the Director could never have been in charge of and responsible for the conduct of the business of the company at the relevant time. While the role of a Director in a company is ultimately a question of fact, and no fixed formula can be fixed for the same, the High Court must exercise its power under S. 482 Cr.P.C. when it is convinced, from the material on record, that allowing the proceedings to continue would be an abuse of process of the Court."

Whereas in the instant case, the complainant has

followed the requisite condition under Section 138 of the

NI Act by issuing notice to the accused after receipt of a

memo to the effect of stoppage of payment of the cheque

which has been returned with an endorsement. The pre-

cognizance has arisen and consequently, complainant has

complied with the requisite conditions under Section 138

of the NI Act and initiated prosecution against the accused

before the Judicial Magistrate having jurisdiction.

In this regard, it is relevant to refer to a judgment of

the Apex Court in the case of SHREE DANESHWARI

TRADERS vs. SANJAY JAIN AND ANOTHER ((2019) 16

SCC 83)). In this judgment, the Hon'ble Supreme Court

has dealt in detail in respect of the issues of debt,

financial and monetary laws - Negotiable Instruments Act,

1881 - Sections 139 and 138 - Dishonour of cheque -

Presumption under Section 139 - Rebuttal of - Defence

that subject cheque was issued as security towards goods

supplied for which payment was subsequently made by

cash - Held, could not be established, as some purchases

were paid for in cash and others by cheque - Evidence

produced by complainant was sufficient to raise

presumption under Section 139 in respect of subject

cheque, which respondent accused was unable to rebut -

Hence, acquittal reversed.

20. In the instant case, the complainant V.M.

Prabhakar initiated a complaint against the accused for

offences under Section 138 of the NI Act. The

complainant had been supplying commodities namely

Rigody ginger as per the understanding between the

complainant and the accused. The same is even though

not in dispute, but the accused had issued cheque in

respect of the transaction even though it is contended that

it is for security purposes, but on presentation of the said

cheque by the complainant in his Bank, the same was

returned as payment having been stopped. From the date

of receipt of that bank memo stopping of payment, cause

of action would arise to the complainant to initiate

criminal prosecution against the accused person.

Therefore, the complainant followed the requisite

provision and initiated proceedings and prosecution

against the accused in PCR No.116/2016 relating to

C.C.No.433/2016, for the offence punishable under

Section 138 of the N.I.Act r/w Section 420 of IPC

The list of documents and list of witnesses have

been furnished by the complainant for initiation of

criminal prosecution against the accused in the respective

PCR Nos. and those witnesses and also list of documents

have been subjected to test under the relevant provisions

of the Cr.P.C., in order to arrive at an appropriate

conclusion.

21. Under Section 138 of the NI Act, once the cheque

is issued by the drawer, a presumption under Section 139

of the NI Act in favour of the holder would be attracted.

Section 139 creates a statutory presumption that a

cheque received in the nature referred to under Section

138 of the NI Act is for the discharge in whole or in part of

any debt or other liability. The initial burden lies upon

the complainant to prove the circumstances under which

the cheque was issued in his favour and the same was

issued in discharge of a legally enforceable debt. It is for

the accused to adduce evidence in relation to such facts

and circumstances to rebut the presumption that such

debt does not exist or that the cheque is not supported by

consideration.

22. In the instant case, complaint has been filed

only after issuance of process against the accused. After

taking cognizance on verification of the materials as well

as the material supplied, the case has been proceeded

against the accused. But the oral and documentary

evidence facilitated by the complainant and the accused

has to be appreciated by the Trial Court. It is the domain

vested with the Trial Court in its jurisdiction. The

complainant has to facilitate virtual evidence in order to

sufficiently prove the guilt of the accused that it was a

legally enforceable debt and that cheque was issued as a

legally enforceable cheque. This is the right of the

complainant. The court thereafter raises a presumption

under Section 139 of the NI Act. But as already stated,

the criminal law has been set into motion for offences

under Section 138 of the NI Act and it is dual in nature of

trial. It is civil in nature and also criminal in nature only

after the guilt of the accused is proved beyond all

reasonable doubt. Till proved, it is to be maintained and

termed as civil in nature of the complainant and the

accused. Whereas in this case, considering the cheque

transaction between the complainant and the accused and

so also initiation of criminal prosecution against the

accused, but the material documents produced by the

complainant while initiation of private complaint, defence

theory taken by the accused have to be subjected to test

under the relevant provisions of the Indian Evidence Act,

1872. However in this case, though accused has not faced

trial but he is seeking intervention under Section 482 of

the Cr.P.C. for quashing the proceedings without any

justified reasons. Inherent jurisdiction under Section 482

Cr.P.C. though wide, has to be exercised sparingly,

carefully and with caution and only when such

exercise is justified by the tests specifically laid

down in the section itself. In exercising its jurisdiction

under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the High Court would not

embark upon an enquiry as to whether the evidence in

question is reliable or not or whether on a reasonable

appreciation of it, accusation would not be sustained at

this stage of proceedings.

23. In the instant case, there is no substance in the

contentions made by the learned counsel for the

petitioner/accused in this petition seeking to quash the

criminal proceedings initiated in the aforesaid private

complaint. In view of the aforesaid reasons and findings, I

proceed to pass the following:

ORDER

The petition filed by the petitioner / accused under

Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. is hereby dismissed.

Consequently, the trial court is directed to take up the

trial of the case in C.C.No.433/2016 arising out of PCR

No.117/2016 in accordance with law wherein the

petitioner / accused requires to face trial.

Sd/-

JUDGE

DKB/KS