Criminal Petition No. 4481 of 2021 · The High Court
Case Details
- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:2980 CRL.P No. 4481 of 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M G UMA CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 4481 OF 2021 BETWEEN: SRI. DHARNEESH H.G. S/O. GANADHARAIAH AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.213 FIRST FLOOR, SHIVADRI APARTMENT 3RD CROSS, 1ST MAIN, AECS LAYOUT GEDDALAHALLI, RMV 2ND STAGE SANJAYNAGAR, BANGALORE - 560 094 (BY SRI. RAJESH A., ADVOCATE) AND: SRI. MADAN .M S/O M. RAMACHANDRA RAJU AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS RESIDING AT SHREERAM SAMEEKSHA FLAT NO.212, NAIDU LAYOUT KUVEMPU NAGAR, JALAHALLI BANGALORE - 560 013
Legal Reasoning
(BY SRI. G. R. SHESHADRI, ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by NANDINI B G Location: high court of karnataka …PETITIONER …RESPONDENT PRAYING THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 CR.PC IN C.C.NO.28538/2019 FOR ISSUANCE OF SUMMONS ON THE ALLEGED TRANSACTION TAKEN PLACE BETWEEN THE PARTIES DURING THE YEAR 2013-14 AS PER THE AVERMENTS AND TAKING COGNIZANCE FOR AN OFFENCE P/U/S 138 OF THE N.I ACT. PROCEEDINGS QUASH THE TO THIS CRIMINAL PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M G UMA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:2980 CRL.P No. 4481 of 2021 ORAL ORDER The petitioner being the accused in CC No.28538 of 2019 pending on the file of the learned XV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru, registered for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short 'the NI Act'), is seeking to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against him. 2. Brief facts of the case are that, the respondent as complainant filed PCR No.14855 of 2019 against the petitioner alleging commission of the offence punishable under Section 138 of NI Act. It is the contention of the complainant that he is a builder and doing land developing business. He met the accused during 2013-14. The accused informed the complainant that he is having lands around Rajanukunte and he wants his lands to be developed by converting them into sites. The complainant agreed to develop the land belonging to the accused bearing Sy.No.30 situated at Sadenahalli Village, Rajanukunte by converting into sites and paid Rs.4,00,000/- to the accused and also paid Rs.5,00,000/- to one Narayan Raju and started developing the land. The complainant spent around Rs.3,50,000/- to develop the land, but later the developmental - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:2980 CRL.P No. 4481 of 2021 work stopped as there was dispute regarding the land. When the complainant approached the accused and requested to pay Rs.7,50,000 and Rs.5,00,000/- that is due to be paid, the accused offered to give land bearing Sy.No.28/2, 3 and 4 situated at Sadenahalli Village, Rajanukunte and offered to sell the same. He further offered to deduct the amount that is due to the complainant from the sale consideration amount. Therefore, the accused asked the complainant to pay Rs.6,00,000/- towards documentations to Manjunath and get clearance for selling the land. 3. It is stated that believing the words of the accused, the complainant gave Rs.6,00,000/- by way of cash to Manjunath. The agreement was entered into in that regard with him. However, the said transaction did not materialize. The accused agreed to pay Rs.7,00,000/- and gave four cheques; i.e., cheques bearing Nos.318689 dated 29.05.2019 for Rs.2,00,000/-; 318690 dated 31.05.2019 for Rs.2,00,000/-; 318691 dated 31.07.2019 for Rs.1,50,000/-; and 318692 dated 31.07.2019 for Rs.1,50,000/-, towards discharge of legally enforceable debt. When the complainant presented the cheques for encashment, the same were dishonored as funds - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:2980 CRL.P No. 4481 of 2021 insufficient. Initially, two cheques were presented for encashment, which were dishonored as insufficient funds. It is stated that the accused has paid the amount pertaining to one of the cheques and asked to represent the other cheques for encashment. Accordingly, the remaining three cheques were presented for encashment and the same were dishonored as there was insufficient funds in the account. Legal notice was issued to the accused calling upon him to pay the cheque amount and the same was served on the accused. In spite of service of notice, the accused has not repaid the cheque amount and thereby committed the offence. Therefore, the complainant requested the Trial Court to take cognizance of the offence and to initiate legal action. The Trial Court took cognizance of the offence and registered CC No.28538 of 2019 for the offence punishable under Section 138 of NI Act. The petitioner is before this Court seeking to quash the criminal proceedings. 4. Heard Sri A Rajesh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri G R Sheshadri, learned counsel for the respondent. Perused the materials on record. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:2980 CRL.P No. 4481 of 2021 5. In view of the rival contentions urged by the learned counsel for both the parties, the point that would arise for my consideration is: "Whether the petitioner has made out any grounds to allow the petition and to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against him?" My answer to the above point is in the 'Negative' for the following: REASONS 6. The only contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the claim of the complainant is with regard to time barred debt and therefore, the criminal proceedings is required to be quashed. On going through the entire complaint, the complainant has not specifically stated as to when he has made payment to the accused. Of course, there is reference to the year 2013-14 in paragraph 3 of the complaint, where the complainant has stated that he met the accused during that period. Thereafter, there is a reference to several dealings with the accused. Finally, there is reference to payment of the amount, according to the complainant, which is due from the accused towards discharged of the same. The - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:2980 CRL.P No. 4481 of 2021 cheques in question were said to have been issued by the accused. But by no stretch of imagination, it could be concluded at this stage that the payment of amount was in the year 2013- 14 and the same is time barred, when the cheque was issued and therefore, the complainant could not have prosecuted the accused. 7. When it is the specific contention of the complainant that the accused had issued as many as three cheques, which came to be dishonored and in spite of legal notice, the cheque amount was not repaid, the initial burden lies on the complainant to prove issuance of cheques, dishonor of the same, service of notice on the accused and failure on the part of the accused to repay the cheques amount. On proof of these facts, the burden shifts on the accused to take a defence and to probabilise the same. If the accused admits issuance of cheques with his signature, the presumption under Sections 118 and 139 of NI Act would arise and the burden will be on the accused to rebut the said presumption. When such is the legal position, it is premature to form an opinion that the claim made by the complainant is time-barred. Therefore, I do not find any merits in the contention taken by the petitioner. - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:2980 CRL.P No. 4481 of 2021 Accordingly, I answer the above point in the Negative and proceed to pass the following:
Decision
ORDER The Criminal Petition is dismissed. Sd/- (M G UMA) JUDGE *bgn/- CT:VS List No.: 3 Sl No.: 1