Karnataka High Court
Sri. Mallikarjunaiah vs Sri H. Suresh on 20 December, 2023
Author: Rajendra Badamikar
Bench: Rajendra Badamikar
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC:46477
CRL.A No. 2051 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJENDRA BADAMIKAR
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 2051 OF 2019 (A)
BETWEEN:
1. SRI. MALLIKARJUNAIAH
S/O SRI RAMEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS
R/O CHENNAMANAHALLI
KYLANCHA HOBLI
RAMANAGARA TALUK AND
RAMANAGARA DISTRICT-562108
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. K.S CHANDRAKANTHA GOWDA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI H. SURESH
S/O LATE HONNAIAH
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,
Digitally
signed by R/O ANJANAPURA
SOWMYA D ANJANAPURA POST,
Location: KYLANCHA HOBLI,
High Court RAMANAGARA TALUK AND
of
Karnataka RAMANAGARA DISTRICT-562159
ANOTHER ADDRESS
H. SURESH
DISTRICT DEED WRITER
D.W.L.NO.16/2009-10
GOVT SERVANTS BHAVANA,
BEHIND MINI VIDHANA SOUDHA
RAMANAGARA TALUK AND
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC:46477
CRL.A No. 2051 of 2019
DISTRICT-562159
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. B. RUDRACHAR, ADVOCATE)
CRL.A. FILED U/S.378(4) CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE
THE ORDER OF ACQUITTAL DATED 14.10.2019 PASSED BY THE
ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, RAMANAGARA IN
C.C.NO.1060/2014 - ACQUITTING THE RESPONDENT/ACCUSED
FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 138 OF N.I. ACT AND ETC.,
I.A.NO.1/2019 IS FILED UNDER SECTION 378(4) OF
CR.P.C. PRAYING TO GRANT SPECIAL LEAVE TO PREFER AN
APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER OF ACQUITTAL PASSED BY THE
CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, RAMANAGARA IN C.C.NO.1060/2014
DATED 14.10.2019.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS ALONG WITH
I.A.NO.1/2019 THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
The learned counsel for the appellant is absent.
2. On 19.12.2023 there was an attempt to seek
adjournment in the morning, but subsequently there was
no representation. When the matter is listed today, there
is no representation.
3. I.A.No.1/2019 is filed under Section 378(4) of
Cr.P.C. seeking Special Leave to file this appeal.
4. The complainant has filed a complaint against
the accused in respect of bouncing of the cheque. It is the
NC: 2023:KHC:46477
contention of the complainant that two sites belonging to
the wife of complainant were sold to one Sri. Nataraju and
Smt. Jyothi and the accused was a mediator and towards
repayment, he has issued a disputed cheque for
Rs.5,00,000/- in favour of complainant.
5. On perusal of the Sale Deeds produced at
Exs.P.10 and P.11, it is evident that the Sale Deeds were
executed by the so called wife of the complainant for
Rs.2,40,000/- each. In that event, the claim amount
should be Rs.4,80,000/- but, the cheque is for
Rs.5,00,000/-. This difference is not explained.
6. Even otherwise, on perusal of sale deeds, there
is a specific recital that entire sale consideration has been
already received. If, the sale consideration is already paid
under Exs.P.10 and P.11, on what basis complainant is
asserting that towards sale consideration, accused being
the mediator has issued cheque is not at all forthcoming.
Apart from that, the liability is in favour of Smt. Padma,
the alleged wife of complainant. But, the cheque was
issued in the name of the complainant. All these anomalies
NC: 2023:KHC:46477
were not explained by the complainant. The Trial Court
has also held that no documents have been produced to
show that the so called Padma is the wife of the
complainant and even she is not examined.
7. Considering all these anomalies, the learned
Magistrate has acquitted the accused for the offence
punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument
Act.
8. Considering these aspects, no grounds are
forthcoming for granting Special Leave as the contention
of the accused that the cheque is issued by the accused
towards the sale consideration as he has acted as a
mediator, holds no water on perusal of Exs.P.10 and P.11.
Hence, I.A.No.1/2019 stands rejected and
consequently, the appeal stands dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
MS*
