Smt. Rathna vs H.G. Raghunatha
2021 Latest Caselaw 602 Kant

    IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

        DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2021

                            BEFORE

          THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH

            CRIMINAL PETITION NO.6155 OF 2020

BETWEEN:

Smt Rathna
W/o D Shekar
Aged about 48 years
R/o Sri Krishna, No.12, 4th A Main
Bhyraveshwaranagar, Mudalapalya Main Road
Opposite Sri Varasiddi Vinayaka Temple
Behind Corporation Bank
Bengaluru-560038.                                   ... Petitioner

(By Sri. Hanumanthappa A, Advocate)

AND:

H.G. Raghunatha
S/o Late Hiriannaiah
Aged 43 years, Businessman
R/o Old Post Office Road
Shivamogga-577201.                                ... Respondent

(Respondent is served)
                              -----

      This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.
praying to set aside the dismissed order dated 05.09.2020
passed in Crl.R.P.No.1/2020 by the III Additional Sessions
Judge, Shivamogga and etc.,

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


                              ------
                                          2



                              ORDER

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

2. This petition is filed under Section 482 of

Cr.P.C., praying this Court to quash order dated

05.09.2020 passed by the Revisional Court in

Crl.R.P.No.1/2020 and also order passed by the II JMFC

Court, Shivamogga in C.C.No.207/2016 and set aside the

order dated 25.11.2019 rejecting application filed under

Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act.

3. The respondent herein has filed a private

complaint under Section 200 of Cr.P.C for the offence

punishable under Section 138 of N.I. Act. The Magistrate

had taken cognizance and recorded the evidence of PW.1.

The PW.1 was partly cross-examined and immediately an

application under Section 45 of the Evident Act has been

filed by accused who is the petitioner herein praying the

Court to refer the signature of the accused to experts and

also to accept the signature. The Magistrate, after

considering the contention of the accused as well as

complainant passed an order in paragraph No.7 as follows:

"On going through the cross-

examination of PW.1 at page 6 at para 3, wherein the complainant has clearly admitted that, the accused has signed the cheque before him'.

4. Apart from that the Trial Court also considered

the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court rendered in L. C.

Goyal Vs. Mrs. Suresh Joshi reported in 1999(3) SCC

376 and further observed that the cheque was returned

with a reason "Account blocked" and not returned the

cheque with reason "Insufficient funds". Being aggrieved by

the order of rejection, Revision Petition has also filed by the

accused before the Revisional Court. The Revisional Court

also in paragraph No.14 of the order extracted the cross-

examination of PW1, wherein the suggestion was made by

the learned counsel for the accused to PW.1 that the

accused signed the cheque in his presence and PW.1

admitted the said suggestion that the said signature was

made in the presence of the complainant. The Revisional

Court also discussed with regard to reasons for returning

of cheque. Hence, I do not find any reason to interfere with

the orders passed by the Trial Court as well as Revisional

Court in not considering the application filed under Section

45 of the Indian Evidence Act by the accused. There is no

merits in the petition to exercise the powers under Section

482 of Cr.P.C.

In view of the above, the petition is rejected.

Sd/-

JUDGE

nms