Allowed

Sri Mohan Bahadur v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC22 Sept 2016CRL.P/280/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a Criminal Petition under Section 482 CrPC to quash proceedings for cheque dishonour initiated by the second respondent, holding that the disputed cheque was already the subject of a pending complaint filed by that same respondent.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Petition No. 280 of 2016 is allowed. Proceedings pending at the instance of the respondent in Case No.C.C.1027/2015 are quashed.

Sri Mohan Bahadur Vs State of Karnataka — Cheque Dishonour | Karnataka HC (2016)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 22^ND DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2016

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND BYRAREDDY

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION No.280 OF 2016

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

Sri. Mohan Bahadur, Son of Prem Bahadur, Aged 55 years, Residing at No.12, Sharada Colony, Near Basaveshwaranagar Bus Stop, Basaveshwara Nagara, Bangalore – 560 079.

¶9

Sri. Ganesh Bahadur, Son of Ram Bahadur, Aged 50 years, Residing at No.3076/32, 9^th Cross, ‘C’ Block, Gayathrinagar, Bangalore – 560 021.

¶10

Sri. Suresh H., Son of not known, Aged 45 years, Residing at Appayanna Compound,

¶11

¶12

RMV 2^nd Stage, Nagashetty Halli, Bangalore – 560 094. …PETITIONERS

¶13

(By Shri Amaresh N., Advocate)

¶14

AND:

¶15

State of Karnataka, Represented by Sub-Inspector of Police, Sampigehalli Sub Division, Bagaluru Police Station, Bangalore City, Bangalore – 562 149.

¶16

Sri. Bheem Bahadur, Son of Late Chan Bahadur, C/o. Rajanna Building, Bagalulre, Opposite to Police Station Road, Bangalore 562 149.

¶17

…RESPONDENTS

¶18

(By Shri Chetan Desai, Government Pleader for Respondent No.1; Shri S.M.Lohith, Advocate for Shri N.R.Girisha, Advocate for Respondent No.2)

¶19

¶20

This Criminal Petition filed under Section 482 code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, praying to i) set aside the order dated 24.8.2013 in PCR No.384/2013 by which the cognizance was taken by the Hon’ble Court of Junior Division Principal

¶21

¶22

Civil Judge, Bangalore Rural now pending before the Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) and Judicial Magistrate First Class, Devanahalli and etc;

¶23

This Criminal Petition coming on for Admission this day, the court made the following:

¶24

O R D E R

¶25

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners. The

¶26

learned counsel for the respondent is absent. A request is made for an adjournment on his behalf. However, from the facts on

¶27

record, it is evident that the petition would have to be allowed.

¶28

The present petitioner no.2 had filed a complaint

¶29

alleging an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, against the second respondent herein. The respondent had entered appearance on summons being served and even admitted that he was liable to make the payment covered under the cheque and sought time to settle the matter and evidence also was tendered, though it was never settled.

¶30

¶31

In the meanwhile, the second respondent has filed a

¶32

complaint alleging that the cheque in question which is the subject matter of the complaint filed by the second petitioner was in fact issued to a third party and it has unlawfully come into the hands of the petitioner herein and that the same is sought to be misused by filing a complaint under Section 138 of the NI Act. It is that complaint which has been entertained by the police and proceedings have been initiated against the present petitioners.

¶33

Given the admitted circumstance that the very cheque is the subject matter of the complaint pending before the court in Case No.C.C.10598/2013, consequently, the present petition is summarily allowed. The proceedings pending at the instance of the respondent in Case No.C.C.1027/2015 is quashed.

¶34

Sd/- JUDGE

¶35

Sri Mohan Bahadur v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Mohan Bahadur v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mr. N.S. Ramanj Vs State of Karnataka

M/S Bagmane Realtors Pvt. Ltd, Vs State by Whitefield Police

Sri. v. Veerappa Vs State by Whitefield Police

Mr M M Kariappa Vs a Madhava Rao

M/S Heramba Leasing Ltd. Vs Smt B K Krishna Kumari

Mr. Shivashankar @ Shiva Vs the State of Karnataka by