Allowed

Piyush Soni @ Pintu S/O Ramesh Soni, v. Sri.Kirtikumar S/O Kantilal Jain

Karnataka HC2 Nov 2018CRL.P/101695/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Karnataka High Court allowed a Criminal Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash proceedings for cheque dishonour, noting that a sworn statement cannot substitute an affidavit. The matter is remanded for a de novo trial from the stage of recording the statement.

What did the court decide?

Petition allowed; matter remanded afresh de novo from the stage of recording the statement of the complainant and respondent.

Piyush Soni @ Pintu S/O Ramesh Soni, Vs Sri.Kirtikumar… — Cheque Dishonour | Karnataka HC (2018)

¶1

: 1 :

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH

¶3

DATED THIS THE 02^ND DAY OF NOVEMBER 2018

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.SUDHINDRARAO

¶6

Criminal Petition No.101695/2015

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

PIYUSH SONI @ PINTU, S/O: RAMESH SONI, AGED ABOUT: 39 YEARS, OCC: PAWN BROKER BUSINESS, AND FINANCIER, R/O:LAKSHMINARAYANA TEMPLE STREET, BALLARI.

¶9

…..PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI J.BASAVARAJ, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND

¶12

SRI KIRTIKUMAR S/O KANTILAL JAIN, AGED ABOUT: 34 YEARS, L.N.TEMPLE STREET, BALLARI.

¶13

…….RESPONDENT

¶14

(BY SRI MANJUNATH JADAI, ADVOCATE)

¶15

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C., SEEKING TO QUASH THE COMPLAINT AND ALL FURTHER PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.181/2015 (P.C.NO.340/2010 PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE LEARNED 1^ST ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN) AND JMFC., BALLARI FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 138 OF N.I.ACT, AND ALSO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 06.02.2015 TAKING COGNIZANCE OF THE ALLEGED OFFENCE AND THE ORDER OF ISSUING PROCESS PASSED BY THE LEARNED 1^ST ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN) AND JMFC., BALLARI IN C.C.NO.181/2015 (P.C.NO.340/2014).

¶16

: 2 :

¶17

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

ORDER

¶19

This petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., seeking to quash all further proceedings in C.C. No. 181/2015 arising out of P.C.R.No.340/2014 on the file of 1^st Addl. Civil Judge (Jr.Dn) & JMFC., Bellary.

¶20

It is alleged in the complaint that the accused had approached the complainant for financial assistance for business requirement purpose and availed loan amount of Rs.4,00,000/- and for the said amount, the accused had executed a demand promissory note agreeing to repay the amount with interest at the rate of 24% p.a. as and when demanded by the complainant. The accused said to be issued a cheque in favour of the complainant for the said amount drawn on Union Bank, Ballari Branch bearing cheque No.019940 dated 21.05.2014.

¶21

The grievance of the petitioner is that, the chief examination of the complainant by way of sworn statement in lieu of affidavit is bad in law. He relied on the judgment of this Court reported in ILR 2008 KAR 474 wherein this

¶22

: 3 :

¶23

Court has already opined that an affidavit cannot substitute the sworn statement. He has relied upon an unreported decision of this Court in Criminal Petition No. 3607/2010 dated 09.09.2010 (P.K. Ummar V. B.M. Kiran Kumar).

¶24

I have perused the decision and in the circumstances, I am of the view that the petition is allowed and remand the matter afresh denova trial from the stage of recording of statement of the complainant and respondent. Ordered accordingly.

¶25

In order to avoid the wastage of judicial time no further notice would be issued to the parties and they are directed to appear before the trial Court on 03.12.2018.

¶26

Office is directed to communicate the trial Court, forthwith.

¶27

SD JUDGE

¶28

msr

Piyush Soni @ Pintu S/O Ramesh Soni, v. Sri.Kirtikumar S/O Kantilal Jain

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Piyush Soni @ Pintu S/O Ramesh Soni, v. Sri.Kirtikumar S/O Kantilal Jain

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. Hanamanthappa S/O Guddappa Gaji Vs Smt. Shobha W/O Hanumanthappa Gaji

Nagarathna L. Kale Vs Mruthunjaya S/Oo Veerabhadrayya Hiremath

Vijaykumar S/O Hanumantappa Bairkara Vs the State of Karnatka

State of Karnataka Vs Nilesh Prakash Warekar

State of Karnataka Vs Shri. Umesh S/O. Vishwanath Katti

Puttappa Shambana Hebballi Vs State of Karnataka