Criminal Petition No. 5839 of 2023 · The High Court
Case Details
- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:16809 CRL.P No. 5839 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU ® DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 5839 OF 2023 (482(Cr.PC) / 528(BNSS)) BETWEEN: MRS. PRAJAKTA BHANUDAS MORE D/O BHANUDAS MORE, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, R/AT: PRAJAKTA BANGALOW, NO.4752/1/1, PLOT NO.10, MANISHA NAGAR, NEAR PRADNYA SCHOOL, IN FRONT OF NAGAR VIKAS VIBHAG PANDHARPUR NAGAR PARSHID, PANDHARPUR TALUK, DISTRICT SOLAPUR, MAHARASHTRA-413 304. (BY SRI. NAVEED AHMED, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY JAYANAGAR POLICE STATION, REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE-560 001. 2. MR. JAYANTH DEEPAK BOKEFODE AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, S/O DEEPAK CHANDRAKANTH BOKEFODE, R/AT: #5, 10TH CROSS, Digitally signed by LAKSHMI T Location: High Court of Karnataka …PETITIONER - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:16809 CRL.P No. 5839 of 2023 2ND MAIN, THYAGARAJNAGAR, BENGALURU-560 070. …RESPONDENTS
Legal Reasoning
(BY SMT. RASHMI PATEL, HCGP FOR R-1; SRI. JAYANTH DEEPAK BOKEFODE, PARTY-IN-PERSON AS R-2) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 CR.PC PRAYING TO QUASH THE CHARGE SHEET IN C.C.NO.35239/2022 PENDING IN THE FILE OF 4TH ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE COURT, NRUPATUNGA ROAD, BENGALURU VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND CONSEQUENTLY QUASH ALL FURTHER PROCEEDINGS THERETO. THIS CRIMINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 20.03.2025, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ CAV ORDER The petitioner, being aggrieved by the charge sheet filed against him in C.C.No.35239/2022 on the file of IV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Bengaluru, has presented this petition seeking quashing of the charge sheet and all further proceedings thereto. 2. Respondent No.2 is the defacto complainant. On a complaint lodged by him, a case in Crime - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:16809 CRL.P No. 5839 of 2023 No.237/2022 was registered against accused Nos.1 and 2, at Jayanagar Police Station, Bengaluru City for the offence punishable under Section 406, 420, 506 r/w 34 of IPC. On completion of investigation, the police have filed the charge sheet. 3. In brief, it is the case of the complainant that he along with his family resides in Bengaluru and works as a Software Engineer at Quick Silver Private Limited. He is a permanent resident of Maharashtra. He was acquainted with the petitioner/accused No.1, as both were employed as Lecturers at Sveri College of Engineering, Pandharpor, Maharashtra, about 11 years ago. In the year 2016, she used to obtain money for her needs and return it. Between October 2016 and January 2022, stating that her father is unwell and for securing a job to her brother and stating that her husband will be arrested by the police and thus, by deceiving the complainant, she received a total sum of Rs.38,95,300/- through online transfers from complainant’s and his wife’s bank account. Further, - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:16809 CRL.P No. 5839 of 2023 Rs.10,18,000/- in cash was provided from a fixed deposit with Ratan Chand Shah Sahakari Bank, Pandharpor, Maharashtra. Out of the total amount, accused No.1 transferred Rs.26,27,096/- to the complainant’s and his wife’s bank account. However, the remaining amount of Rs.30,28,304/- was unpaid. When the complainant requested accused No.1 and her husband i.e., accused No.2, though they assured to repay the amount, however, refused to pay and threatened him with dire consequences, if they lodge any complaint with the police. 4. The instant petition seeking quashing of the proceedings is preferred on the ground that the complaint is belated and complainant’s wife has initiated proceedings under Section 138 of N.I. Act, falsely alleging that petitioner is due huge sum of money to her and the present criminal proceeding is initiated to harass the petitioner and therefore, it is an abuse of process of law. 5. The main contention of the learned counsel for petitioner is that when already a proceeding is initiated - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:16809 CRL.P No. 5839 of 2023 regarding the same cause of action, alleging an offence under Section 138 of N.I. Act, the present proceeding alleging cheating etc., would amount to double jeopardy and cannot be allowed to continue. He would also contend that there is no preliminary enquiry conducted before registering the case and the complaint which is lodged belatedly was not maintainable. 6. In the complaint, specific averments are made that the accused deceived the complainant to pay the amount on the ground of ill-health of her father, for securing a job to her brother and also stating that the Police will arrest her husband. Whether there was an intention of cheating the complainant at the inception, is a matter which has to be established in due course. According to the complainant, after receiving the amount under various transactions, with an assurance of repayment, accused not only failed to return the amount, but also threatened him and his wife with dire consequences. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:16809 CRL.P No. 5839 of 2023 7. In Sangeetaben Mahendrabhai Patel v. State of Gujarath & Another reported in (2012) 7 SCC 621 the Hon’ble Apex Court in para 37 and 38 held as under:- "37. Admittedly, the appellant had been tried earlier for the offences punishable under the provisions of Section 138 of the NI Act and the case is sub judice before the High Court. In the instant case, he is involved under Sections 406/420 read with Section 114 IPC. In the prosecution under Section 138 of the NI Act, the mens rea i.e. fraudulent or dishonest intention at the time of issuance of cheque is not required to be proved. However, in the case under IPC involved herein, the issue of mens rea may be relevant. The offence punishable under Section 420 IPC is a serious one as the sentence of 7 years can be imposed. 38. In the case under the NI Act, there is a legal presumption that the cheque had been issued for discharging the antecedent liability and that presumption can be rebutted only by the person who draws the cheque. Such a requirement is not there in the offences under IPC. In the case under the NI Act, if a fine is imposed, it is - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:16809 CRL.P No. 5839 of 2023 to be adjusted to meet the legally enforceable liability. There cannot be such a requirement in the offences under IPC. The case under the NI Act can only be initiated by filing a complaint. However, in a case under IPC such a condition is not necessary.” 8. The question as to whether, when a proceeding under Section 138 of N.I. Act was pending, a proceeding initiated alleging cheating etc., would amount to double jeopardy and whether an accused be tried under N.I. Act as well as under IPC on similar set of allegations was dealt with by the Hon’ble Apex Court in J.Vedhasingh v. R.M.Govindan and others reported in 2022 SCC Online SC 1010. The matter was referred to larger Bench to answer the following questions: “(1) Whether the ratio of the judgment, in the case of G. Sagar Suri (supra) and Kolla Veera Raghav Rao (supra) lay down the correct law? Or The view taken in the case of Sangeetaben Mahendrabhai Patel (supra) as - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:16809 CRL.P No. 5839 of 2023 followed in V.S. Reddy and Sons (supra) which is subsequent and conflicting, lay down the correct proposition of law? (2) Whether on similar set of allegations of fact the accused can be tried for an offence under NI Act which is special enactment and also for offences under IPC unaffected by the prior conviction or acquittal and, the bar of Section 300(1) Cr.P.C. would attract for such trial?” 9. It is pertinent to note that the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in Jitendra Singh and another v. State of Punjab & Others in CRM-M- 19131-2022 D.D.20.11.2023, in identical circumstances, has taken into consideration the relevant judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court and disposed of the said case with liberty to the petitioner to file a fresh petition after the decision rendered by the larger Bench of the Hon’ble Supeme Court. 10. Para Nos.20 to 23 of the above judgment are extracted hereunder: - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:16809 CRL.P No. 5839 of 2023 “20. In the case of Union Territory of Ladakh & Ors Versus Jammu and Kashmir National Conference & anr. Civil Appeal No.5707 Of 2023, Hon'ble Supreme Court holds as under:- 35. We are seeing before us judgments and orders by High Courts not deciding cases on the ground that the leading judgment of this Court on this subject is either referred to a larger Bench or a review petition relating thereto is pending. We have also come across examples of High Courts re-fusing deference to judgments of this Court on the score that a later Coordinate Bench has doubted its correctness. In this regard, we lay down the position in law. We make it absolutely clear that the High Courts will proceed to decide matters on the basis of the law as it stands. It is not open, unless specifically directed by this Court, to await an outcome of a reference or a review petition, as the case may be. It is also not open to a High Court to refuse to follow a judgment by stating that it has been doubted by a later Coordinate Bench. In any case, when faced with conflicting judgments by Benches of equal strength of this Court, it is the earlier one which is to be followed by the High Courts, as held by a 5-Judge Bench in National Insurance Company Limited v - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:16809 CRL.P No. 5839 of 2023 Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 6805. The High Courts, of course, will do so with careful regard to the facts and circumstances of the case before it. 21. In the light of the mandate of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union Territory of Ladakh & Ors Versus Jammu and Kashmir National Conference & anr., Civil Appeal No.5707 Of 2023, the earliest judgment of the largest bench strength on the point in issue is to be followed. 22. In Sangeetaben Mahendrabhai Patel, Gujarat, (2012) 7 SCC 621, Para 28, a two member bench of Supreme Court had Squarely held that there may be some overlapping of facts in both the cases but ingredients of offences are entirely different. Thus, the subsequent case is not barred by any of the aforesaid statutory provisions. 23. Given above, the present petition is disposed of with liberty to file fresh after the decision of the above mentioned larger bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court. Till that time, the petitioners shall be permitted to appear through counsel and shall be exempted from personal appearance except on the date(s), when in the opinion of the trial court, such appearance is necessary. All the proceedings before the trial court shall be subject to the outcome of the judgment of larger bench and consequent - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC:16809 CRL.P No. 5839 of 2023 petition similar to this, if the stage arises. Trial Court may give some reasonable time to petitioner in case question answered in his favour to come to this Court again under Section 482 CrPC for quashing of FIR on the same ground as taken in this petition.” 11. Having considered the contentions raised by both the parties and the material on record, I am of the considered view that at this stage no grounds are made to quash the proceedings pending against the petitioner. 12. It is needless to say that the decision rendered by the larger Bench of the Hon’ble Apex Court on the question in issue will be binding on both the parties. Petition is dismissed. Sd/- (MOHAMMAD NAWAZ) JUDGE HB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 2 CT:ar