Mr B K Ananda @ Ananda K vs Mrs Parvathamma
2021 Latest Caselaw 827 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.2336 OF 2020

BETWEEN:

Mr. B.K. Ananda @ Ananda.K
Aged about 37 years
S/o Mr. Krishnappa
Residing at Budhihala Village
Kasabahobli, Devanahalli Taluk
Bengaluru Rural District-562110.
                                                     ... Petitioner
(By Sri Rudrabhushan C.B, Advocate)

AND:

Mrs. Parvathamma
Aged about 61 years
W/o late Mr. Narasimhappa
Residing at Jathawara Village
Post Nandi, Nandi Hobli
Chikkaballapura Taluk &
District-562101.
                                                   ... Respondent
(By Sri A.S. Kulkarni, Advocate )

                                -----

      This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.
praying to quash the entire proceedings in case bearing
C.C.No.124/2019 for the offence P/U/S 138 of NI Act, 1881
pending before the Court of the learned 6th ASCJ and 31st
ACMM at Bengaluru City and etc.,

      This Criminal Petition coming on for Admission, this day,
the court made the following through video conference :
                                    2



                              ORDER

Sri A S Kulakarni, learned counsel submits that he

has already filed vakalath on behalf of respondent on

12.01.2021. Office has also put up vakalath on record.

2. This petition is filed under Section 482 of

Cr.P.C., praying this Court to quash the entire proceedings

in C.C.No.124/2019 for the offence punishable under

Section 138 of N.I. Act.

3. The factual matrix of the case is that

respondent herein had filed private complaint under

Section 200 of Cr.P.C., for the offence punishable under

Section 138 of N.I. Act. The Magistrate took the cognizance

and issued proceedings against this petitioner. Hence, the

present petition is filed before this Court.

4. The ground urged in this petition is that with

malafide intention the complaint is filed to harass the

petitioner. The other contention is that there is a

manipulation in the cheque and also the cheque is not

belongs to this petitioner and the same is belongs to

different person and hence it is a fit case to quash the

proceedings.

5. Per contra, the learned counsel for the

respondent would submit that the grounds which have

been urged in this petition can raise during the course of

the trial as defence and this Court cannot sit and decide

the grounds which has been urged in the petition filed

under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. The counsel in support of his

contention also relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Apex

Court in the case of Rajeshbhai Muljibhai Patel and Ors.

Etc., v. State of Gujarath and Anr., Etc., reported in AIR

2020 SC 818. The learned counsel also brought to the

notice of this Court para No.20 of the judgment that the

disputed question of facts are involved it needs to be

adjudicated after parties adduced evidence. The complaint

Under Section 138 of N.I. Act ought not to have been

quashed by the High Court by exercising power under

Section 482 of Cr.P.C. in respect of disputed facts. Hence,

prays this Court to dismiss the petition.

6. Having heard the learned counsel for the

petitioner as well as respondent, this Court has to consider

the material available on record. No dispute with regard to

taking of cognizance by the Magistrate and the grounds

urged by the petitioner are with regard to capacity of a

person in making payment of huge amount of Rs.16 lakhs.

The other contention of the learned counsel for the

petitioner is that date of presentation of cheque has been

altered. The other contention is that the cheque not

belongs to this petitioner and belongs to some other

person. The grounds which have been urged in this

petition are the defences and this Court cannot decide the

issue between the parties with regard to disputed facts

under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., the petitioner is open to raise

all his defences before the trial Court during the course of

the trial. The petitioner not made out any grounds for

quashing of the proceedings. The principle laid down by

the Hon'ble Apex Court in the judgment stated supra is

applicable to the case on hand. Hence, it is made

clear that the disputes involved in the matter has to be

adjudicated, after the parties adduced their evidence and

this Court cannot exercise power under Section 482 of

Cr.P.C.,

In view of the discussion made above, I pass the

following :-

ORDER

The petition is dismissed.

Sd/-

JUDGE

nms