Dismissed

Sri Lokesh K E v. Smt Madhu

Karnataka HC2 Aug 2021CRL.A/459/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a criminal appeal filed by a cheque dishonour complainant. The High Court upheld the trial court's decision to acquit the accused, finding that the complainant was a stranger to the accused and the evidence regarding the transaction and capability to advance funds was doubtful.

What did the court decide?

The I.A.2/21 was dismissed and the Criminal Appeal was dismissed, thereby dismissing the complaint against the accused.

Sri Lokesh K E Vs Smt Madhu — Cheque Dishonour | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 02^ND DAY OF AUGUST, 2021

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR

¶6

CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 459 OF 2021

¶7

BETWEEN

¶8

Sri Lokesh K.E., S/o Eashwaraiah, Aged about 31 years, R/o Kadurahalli Village, Kadur Taluk, Chikmagaluru District-577548.

¶9

…Appellant

¶10

(By Sri H.Malatesh, Advocate)

¶11

AND

¶12

Smt. Madhu W/o Achuthananda Aged about 33 years, Teacher, GHPS Thegur Village, Rampua Post, Chikmagaluru Taluk & District Pin-577133.

¶13

…Respondent

¶14

This Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 378(4) Cr.P.C., praying to set aside the impugned judgment dated 24.11.2020 passed by the Principal Senior Civil Judge and C.J.M., Chikkamagaluru in C.C.No.1390/2019 acquitting

¶15

¶16

the respondent/accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I.Act.

¶17

This Criminal Appeal coming on for orders this day, the Court made the following:

¶18

JUDGMENT

¶19

Heard the appellant’s counsel on I.A.2/2021. Since the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chickmagaluru, by his order dated 24.11.2020, dismissed the case C.C.No.1390/2019 and acquitted the accused of the offence under Section 138 of N.I.Act, this appeal has been preferred and leave is sought under Section 378(4) of Cr.P.C.

¶20

The appellant is the complainant. According

¶21

to him the accused on 16.1.2017 issued a cheque bearing No.120242 for Rs.2,50,000/- drawn on Syndicate Bank, STJ College Campus Branch, Belur, Chickmagalur to the complainant for clearing the loan

¶22

¶23

that he had borrowed from the complainant for clearing the lease amount. The cheque was dishonoured, the complainant issued a legal notice and thereafter initiated action under Section 138 of N.I.Act. The learned Magistrate after appreciating the evidence of PW.1 and, 3 documents Ex.P.3 to 5, recorded findings that the complainant was not able to prove that the accused issued a cheque for Rs.2,50,000/- to discharge his liability. The trial court has held that there is probability in the defence put forth, as the complainant might be a stranger to the accused. Another aspect considered by the trial court is complainant’s deviation from the contents of the complaint while giving evidence. It is further observed that at the time of argument, the learned counsel for the complainant filed a memo with a copy of the order sheet in MVC.No.230/2013 to show that complainant had received compensation in connection with the

¶24

¶25

death of his brother and therefore he had sufficient funds in his bank account to lend money to the accused. It is further observed by the trial court that the order sheet revealed that only Rs.1,43,484/- was deposited in the name of the complainant for a period of five years and that amount was released to him in the month of September, 2016. This amount was not given in cash. The court cheque was issued and then the amount was credited to the bank account of the complainant. But the complainant did not produce bank account extract and therefore the complainant’s case becomes doubtful.

¶26

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the cheque was actually issued by the complainant to the accused for clearing the lease amount as the accused had utilized the lease amount for constructing the house. Though this reason is not specifically stated in the complaint, on reading the evidence of

¶27

¶28

PW.1, it is possible to arrive at such a conclusion. He also tries to argue that the complainant totally received an amount of Rs.10,00,000/- and the amount deposited in the bank was only Rs.1,43,484/-. That means the trial court has just taken into consideration the deposited amount of Rs.1,43,484/and it has failed to consider the fact that the complainant had received the balance amount excluding R.1,43,484/- from the total compensation of Rs.10,00,000/-. This shows that the complainant had sufficient funds in his bank account to lend money. According to him, the trial court has not properly appreciated the evidence to dismiss the complaint to acquit the accused.

¶29

I do not find that the trial court has

¶30

committed any error in dismissing the complaint. If the complaint is perused it becomes clear that the complainant has given the reason that he lent money

¶31

¶32

to the accused as the latter wanted to clear the lease amount and in this connection, the accused issued a cheque to the complainant. That means liability of the accused arose in the background of this transaction and the complainant must prove this purpose. But in the cross-examination, he gives altogether a different reason stating that the accused approached him for financial assistance for constructing a house. Therefore the trial court has doubted the complainant’s stand with regard to the purpose for which he lent money to the accused. The complainant has further stated in the cross-examination that he did not know the address of the accused and the place where she was constructing the house, obviously it gives rise to doubt the complainant’s acquaintance with the accused. If the evidence shows that both were strangers, issuing a cheque to a stranger should be doubted. So far as the compensation that the

¶33

¶34

complainant received in connection with the motor vehicle accident case, nothing is stated in the complaint about it. It appears that during argument that fact was introduced to show the capacity of the complainant to lend money. Therefore having found the evidence of complainant being rebutted suitably, if the Magistrate came to a conclusion to dismiss the complaint, there is no infirmity in it. When the appeal is devoid of merits, question of granting special leave does not arise. I.A.2/21 is dismissed. Appeal is also dismissed.

¶35

Sd/JUDGE sd

Sri Lokesh K E v. Smt Madhu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Lokesh K E v. Smt Madhu

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

Sri Rudresh Mallikarjun Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Lokesha M K Vs State of Karnataka

Suhail @ Noor Mohammed Vs State of Karnataka

Smt. S. N. Vinoda Vs Naveen Kumar. K

Sri Chidambara Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt. Thamaraiselvi Vs the State of Karnataka