✦ Karnataka High Court

Judgment · High Court

Case at a glance

Outcome

Allowed

Accordingly, the petition is allowed

Provisions considered

Key paragraphs

  • Para 66. Having regard to the same and in view of the fact that the averment made in the private complaint by itself do not constitute offence under Section 138 of the Act, proceedings in PCR No.64/2010. which is now numbered as C.C. No.179/2011 on the…

Judgment

SRI P H PRAKASH S/0 PUTTASWAMY AGED YEARS, R/O MALLIKARUJUNA NILAYA, NO4, MAIN ROAD, TILAK NAGAR, 2ND CORSS, NEAR CANARA BANK SHIMOGA SMTMCUSHARANI W/O H PRAKASH Ri’O MALL1KARJUNA NILAYA, NO.4, MAIN ROAD, TILAK NAGAR, 2ND CROSS, NEAR CANARA BANK, SHIMOGA .PET1TIONERS (BY SRI. SHOWRI H R, AD’!.) C K DHARANESH 5/0 KE NCHAPPA AGED ABOUT 4 YEARS, RKJAT MCC A BLOCK 10Th MAIN, A.MARESHWARA KRUPA. DAVANAGERE THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CRRC. PRAYING TO QUASH THE CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS INITIATED UNDER SECTION 138 OF NJACT, 1881, BY THE RESPONDENT HEREIN BEFORE THE I jMFC, DAVANAGERE IN PCR NO64/1O, WHICH IS NOW NUMBERED AS CCNO.179/11 BY SETTING ASIDE THE ORDER DATED:29OiJ1, PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-j, THIS PETITION IS COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: ORDER Petitioners are seeking quashing of proceedings in PCR No64/2O1O, which is now numbered as CC. NoJ79/2011 pending on the file of the I Davanagere.

#2. A private complaint was filed by the respondent against the petitioners herein for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short, ‘the Act’).

#3. in the compiaint, is alleged that the account belongs t.o accused No.1 and the cheque issued to the (i 3

#4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that since it is alleged that accused No.1 holds account and the cheque is signed by accused No.2, the provisions of Section 138 of the Act are not attracted.

#5. Learned counsel for the complainant does not dispute this position. However, he seeks leave of the Court to prosecute the accused for any other offence.

#6. Having regard to the same and in view of the fact that the averment made in the private complaint by itself do not constitute offence under Section 138 of the Act, proceedings in PCR No.64/2010. which is now numbered as C.C. No.179/2011 on the file of the I JMFC., Davanagere, stand quashed. Liberty is reserved to the complainant to prosecute such other remedy, which is available in law. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. Sd! JuDGE

Questions this judgment answers

What did the Court decide in this case?

The Court recorded the following disposition: Accordingly, the petition is allowed

Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 — s. 138.

Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case

No treatment data yet for this judgment in the Courts & Cases corpus.

Absence of data is not a statement about the judgment’s standing — the corpus covers only judgments we index and link with cited evidence.

Why is this linked?

This is the original judgment text, reproduced from the public court record. Always verify it against the official record before relying on it in a filing — check it on Karnataka High Court or eCourts case status (search case no. JUSTICE SUBHASH BADI CRLP No. 6505 of 2011). ← Search more judgments