Dismissed

Sri M C Dayashekhar v. Sri K G Lokesh

Karnataka HC8 Dec 2016CRL.P/9064/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged an order allowing the respondent to lead additional evidence in a cheque dishonour case. The High Court rejected the criminal petition, finding no warrant for interference as the lower courts had already dismissed the complaint after considering evidence.

What did the court decide?

Petition rejected; no interference with the lower court order allowing the respondent to lead additional evidence.

Sri M C Dayashekhar Vs Sri K G Lokesh — Cheque Dishonour | Karnataka HC (2016)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 08^TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2016

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND BYRAREDDY

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION No.9064 OF 2016

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

Sri. M.C.Dayashekhar, Son of Late S.M. Chandrashekar, Aged about 51 years, Residing at “Madhu Estate”, Madegodu Village, Gopalpura Post, Shanivarasanthe Hobli, Somwarpet Taluk, Kodagu District – 571 235. …PETITIONER (By Smt. Sindhu V., Advocate) AND:

¶9

Sri. K.G.Lokesh, Son of Late Gowraiah, Aged about 49 years, Residing at Koogekodi Village, Somwarpet Taluk, Kodagu District – 571 235. …RESPONDENT

¶10

¶11

This Criminal Petition filed under Section 482 code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, praying to set aside the order dated 14.10.2016 passed by the Principal Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate First Class, Somwarpet in C.C.No.1160/2014.

¶12

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

¶13

O R D E R

¶14

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the

¶15

learned Counsel for the respondent.

¶16

The petitioner is said to be accused of an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The petitioner and the respondent are related. It transpires that the cheque, though was for a sum of Rs.5,00,000/-, it was not issued in favour of the respondent. However, it is being misused to the extent that it is claimed as a cheque for Rs.18.00 lakh issued in favour of the respondent. Further, the respondent was not capable of lending any such amount and therefore this was a serious issue on which there was a controversy and the respondent himself had chosen to

¶17

¶18

lead additional evidence to establish his solvency having regard to the respondent’s solvency being seriously questioned and even after such additional evidence being tendered to the detriment of the petitioner’s defence, the respondent has yet again filed another application under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking to lead further evidence in support of his solvency, which is clear abuse of process of the court. Therefore, the petitioner is before this court.

¶19

The repeated applications under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 to establish an issue in favour of the respondent, which has already been touched upon earlier would appear to be mere surplusage and could even be characterized as an abuse of process. But given the trend of the judgments of the courts below, where such controversies are highlighted and even the complaints being rejected and the accused acquitted, it is by way of abundant caution that the respondent may have been advised to tender additional evidence. This would not in any way prejudice the case of the

¶20

¶21

petitioner for the respondent is only being extra cautious of his

¶22

case. Therefore, there is no warrant for interference.

¶23

The petition is rejected.

¶24

Sd/-

¶25

JUDGE

¶26

Sri M C Dayashekhar v. Sri K G Lokesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri M C Dayashekhar v. Sri K G Lokesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Devaraju B Vs the State by

Sri Devaraju B Vs the State by

Sri C J Prabhakar Vs the State by Kodigehalli

Union of India Vs Arun Kumar

H M Mahadevappa Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Manjunatha @ Manja Vs the State of Karnataka