Gayathri Govinda Reddy vs State Of Karnataka
2021 Latest Caselaw 782 Kant

    IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

        DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2021

                            BEFORE

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

             CRIMINAL PETITION NO.2543 OF 2020
BETWEEN:

  1. Gayathri Govinda Reddy W/o Govinda Reddy
     Aged 38 years

  2. Govinda Reddy S/o Sampangi Reddy
     Aged 49 years

       Residing at No. SA 71
       Vijaya Bank Apartment
       Vijaya Enclave, BTM 4th Stage
       Vijaya Bank Colony
       Bengaluru-560076.
                                                ... Petitioners
(By Sri Anand C.G, Advocate)
AND:

  1. State of Karnataka
     By Sarjapura Police Station
     Attibele Circle, Bangalore District
     Rep. by Public Prosecutor
     High Court Complex
     Bengaluru-560001.

  2. Srinivas S/o late Shankarappa
     Aged 55 years
     R/at No.58, Madappanahalli Village
     Kugur Post, Sarjapura Hobli
     Anekal Taluk
     Bengaluru-562125.
                                            ... Respondents
(By Sri K S Abhijith, HCGP for R1
    Sri R.S. Prasanna Kumar, Adv. for R2)
                              -----
                                     2



      This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.
praying to quash the complaint filed by the respondent bearing
Cr.No.250/2019 for the offence P/U/S 420, 504, 506 and
Section 34 of IPC and etc.,

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

                           ORDER

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and also

learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

2. Though this case is listed for Admission today,

with the consent of both the parties, the matter is taken up

for disposal on merits.

3. This petition is filed under Section 482 of

Cr.P.C., seeking for quashing of FIR registered against the

petitioners for the offence punishable under Section 420,

504, 506 R/w 34 of IPC.

4. The factual matrix of the case is that there was

an agreement between the petitioner and respondent No.2

as regards sale of property for consideration of Rs.60 lakhs

out of which an amount of Rs.50,000/- was paid. Sale

transaction did not take place. The petitioners herein have

agreed to repay amount and issued the cheque. The

cheque issued by the petitioners herein is incomplete and

the same is not honoured. The complainant has filed

complaint dated 20.12.2019 reiterating the same in the

complaint and particularly in paragraph No.5 contended

that with a dishonest intention, petitioner No.1 issued

cheque with incomplete signature and the same was

returned with endorsement 'Drawer signature incomplete'.

It is also contended that with a dishonest manner,

petitioner violated the terms of the sale agreement which

leads to criminal breach of trust. Therefore, dishonest

inducement is made out. It is also mentioned in the

complaint that only with an intention of causing wrongful

loss to the complainant with malafide intention, fraudulent

motive, issued cheque leaving her incomplete signature. It

is also alleged that on 09.12.2019 both the husband and

wife reverted against complainant and abused in filthy and

vulgar language and used unparliamentary words and gave

life threat. Based on the complaint, the police have

registered the case.

5. The present petition is filed for quashing of the

complaint contending that complainant with an intention

to harass the petitioner filed complaint with malafide

intention, there was no any ingredients of the offence

invoking against the petitioner. The complainant has not

made out any grounds with dishonest intention the

incomplete cheque was issued and hence, it requires

interference of this Court by exercising power under

Section 482 of Cr.P.C. The learned counsel for the

petitioner in support of his contention also relied upon the

judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of

Commissioner of Police and Others v. Devender Anand

and Others reported in 2019 SCC Online SC 996 and

brought to notice of this Court para No.9 of the judgment

with regard to exercising power under Section 482 of

Cr.P.C. The learned counsel also relied upon the judgment

in Ram Biraji Devi and Another vs. Umesh Kumar

Singh and Another reported in (2006) 6 SCC 669 and

brought to notice paragraph Nos.9 to 11 with regard to

exercising of power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., for

quashing of the petition. Referring the above judgments

contend that no prima facie case is made out to prove

involvement of the petitioner for commission of alleged

offence. The learned counsel also relied upon the judgment

of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Murari Lal Gupta vs.

Gopi Singh reported in (2005) 13 SCC 699 brought to the

notice of this Court para No.6, wherein the Apex Court

made an observation with regard to invoking of Section 420

and also 406 if complainant does not make out a case for

invoke the said offence. Merely because of agreement to

sale was entered into or it cannot be said that the

petitioner has cheated the respondent. The learned counsel

referring this judgment would contend that this Court can

invoke Section 482 of Cr.P.C., as the complainant has not

made out a case to invoke offence against this petitioner.

6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent

No.2/complainant would submit that there was

transaction between the husband and wife and this

petitioner and earlier sale transaction between the wife and

respondent No.2 was cancelled. This transaction is in

respect of different property with wife i.e., respondent No.2

herein and issued the cheque for an amount of Rs.50 lakh

which contains incomplete signature of the petitioner No.1

herein. The same was presented and returned with

endorsement 'signature incomplete'. The accused not only

induced the complainant with dishonest intention but also

abused in filthy language and gave life threat. The same

has been reiterated in the complaint averment which made

out a case for invoking Sections 420, 504 and 506 of IPC.

There are no grounds to invoke Section 482 of Cr.P.C., In

support of his contention he has relied upon the judgment

of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sampelly

Satyanarayana Rao vs Indian Renewable Energy

Development Agency Limited reported in (2016) 10 SCC

458 and tried to convince this Court with regard to

exercise power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., The matter

involved disputed question of fact and the same cannot be

decided in a petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.,

7. Learned counsel also brought to the notice of

this Court order passed in Crl.MC. No.2345/2015 by the

Kerala High Court, wherein the Kerala High Court made an

observation at para Nos.19 to 21 that "mere filing the suits

for recovery of the money and complaint filed under Section

138 of the N.I. Act by itself no grounds to quash the

proceedings. Even if the case involves breach of contract, if

there is an element of cheating and fraud, it is always open

for a party to prosecute the other side offences alleged". It

also held that "power under Section 482 of Cr.PC., to be

exercised sparingly if case is not made out for the offences

alleged on the reading of the complaint itself or in cases

where such complaint is filed by way of abuse of the

process".

8. Having heard the learned counsel for

respondent No.2, this Court has to consider the material

on record. Having perused the complaint dated

20.12.2019, the specific allegation is made in the

complaint with regard to dishonest intention the cheque

was issued with incomplete signature and also specific

allegation is made in para Nos.8 and 9 that with fraudulent

motive, the said cheque was issued. Apart from that an

allegation is made that incident was taken on 09.12.2019

that this petitioner abused the complainant in filthy and

vulgar language and further threatened the life of the

petitioner.

9. Having perused the contents of the complaint,

specific allegation was made out for invoking of Section

420, 504 and 506 of IPC and the learned counsel for the

petitioners vehemently contend that averments made in the

complaint does not attract offences invoked against the

petitioners. The said contention cannot be accepted. The

principle laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court referring by the

learned counsel for the petitioners are with regard to no

averments in the complaint for invoking the offences but in

the case on hand already referred supra, made clear that

specific averments are made in the complaint. When the

specific averments are made in the complaint, the

quashing of exercising Section 482 of Cr.P.C., does not

arise. The judgment referred by the learned counsel for

respondent No.2 also discloses that even civil suit is filed

and proceedings under 138 of the N.I. Act is filed, the same

is not a ground to quash the proceedings. The Court has to

take note of averments with regard to dishonest intention

act of the petitioners and issued the cheque and specific

averments in the complaint. Having referred the principles

laid down in the judgments stated supra, it is not a fit case

to exercise power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., to quash

the proceedings. When the specific allegation is made in

the complaint particularly mentioning dishonest intention

and also date of incident abusing and causing threat of life

to the complaint, there is no merit in the petition.

With the above observation, I pass the following :-

ORDER

The petition is dismissed.

Sd/-

JUDGE

nms