Dismissed

N. J. Ravishankar v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC7 Apr 2021CRL.P/8001/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Karnataka dismissed a criminal petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking to quash the order rejecting a discharge application. The Court held that prima facie material, including FSL report and forged signatures, established a case requiring full trial.

What did the court decide?

The criminal petition and the related investigation were rejected; the impugned order dismissing the discharge application was affirmed.

N. J. Ravishankar Vs State of Karnataka — Cheque Dishonour | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 7^TH DAY OF APRIL, 2021

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P. SANDESH

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.8001/2020

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

1 . N.J.RAVISHANKAR S/O LATE N.A. KUMAR AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS

¶9

2 . SMT. SARVAMANGALA W/O LATE N.A. KUMAR AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS

¶10

BOTH ARE RESIDING AT NO.20 SB ROAD, V.V. PURAM BENGALURU-560004

¶11

… PETITIONERS (BY SRI N.B.NIJALINGAPPA, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

1 . STATE OF KARNATAKA BY CENTRAL POLICE STATION BENGALURU-560018 REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT BUILDING BENGALURU-560001

¶14

2 . S.MANI S/O LATE SHIVAMURTHY AGE: MAJOR, R/AT NO.2709 17^TH CROSS, 2^ND STAGE

¶15

¶16

BANASHANKARI BENGALURU-560070

¶17

AND ALSO PRESENTLY R/AT NO.212, 2^ND MAIN, 13^TH CROSS KAVERIPURAM, KAMAKSHIPALYA BENGALURU-560079.

¶18

… RESPONDENTS

¶19

(BY SMT. NAMITHA MAHESH B.G., HCGP FOR R1; SRI L.SIDDESHA UMMATHUR, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶20

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 26.12.2019 PASSED BY THE LXVI ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU IN CRL.RP.NO.196/2019 (VIDE ANNEXURE-A) AND THE ORDER DATED 17.11.2018 PASSED BY THE XXVI ACMM, BENGALURU (VIDE ANNEXURE-B) IN DISMISSING THE DISCHARGE APPLICATION FILED BY THE PETITIONERS IN C.C.NO.29830/2020 FILED UNDER SECTION 239 OF CR.P.C FOR DISCHARGING THEM FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 420, 465, 468, 471 OF IPC CONSEQUENTLY DISCHARGE THE PETITIONERS BY ALLOWING THE DISCHARGE APPLICATION FILED BY THE PETITIONERS.

¶21

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

¶22

O R D E R

¶23

This petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. praying

¶24

this Court to quash the order dated 26.12.2019 passed by the LXVI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru in Crl.R.P.No.196/2019 and order dated 17.11.2018 passed by

¶25

¶26

XXVI Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru in dismissing the discharge application filed by the petitioners in C.C.No.29830/2010 under Section 239 of Cr.P.C. for discharging the accused for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 465, 468 and 471 of IPC and grant such other reliefs as deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the case.

¶27

The factual matrix of the case is that respondent No.2 had initiated the criminal prosecution against these petitioners for the above offences. Earlier these petitioners had approached this Court by filing the criminal petition in Crl.P.No.5953/2020 and the same was dismissed reserving liberty to the petitioners herein to file a necessary application under Section 239 of Cr.P.C., if charges are not framed. The petitioners had filed the application under Section 239 of Cr.P.C. and the same came to be dismissed vide order dated 17.11.2018. Hence, the same is questioned before this Court.

¶28

Learned counsel for the petitioners would

¶29

vehemently contend that similar allegations are made against the petitioners herein in the suit, which was filed before the

¶30

¶31

Hosur Court and the same was questioned before the High Court of Madras, which came to be appealed to the Supreme Court and for pending consideration. Learned counsel also would vehemently contend that another criminal case has also been filed against the petitioners herein in C.C.No.29829/2010, in which they were acquitted. Hence, it is clear that similar allegations are also made against these petitioners in the earlier proceedings and therefore, there cannot be any prosecution against these petitioners. Though no material is collected by the Investigating Officer and produced before the Trial Court, the Trial Court has come to the conclusion that there is a prima facie material, which requires trial.

¶32

Per contra, the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the State would vehemently contend that disputed signatures which are said to be the alleged signatures of the complainant has been forged and the FSL report is also secured which discloses that there is a difference in the handwriting and also in the signature which were sent for opinion. Learned counsel also would vehemently contend that

¶33

¶34

the official who was working with the accused had also made the statement before the Investigating Officer and when the prima facie material is available before the Court, it requires trial.

¶35

Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioners

¶36

and the learned High Court Government Pleader for State and also on perusal of the impugned order of the Trial Court, the learned Trial Judge noted the dispute between the parties, which is pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court with regard to decree being passed in O.S.No.240/2001. The Trial Judge also while dismissing the application has given the reason that the specific allegations are made in the complaint and also in the charge sheet that taking the advantage of accused, has misused the six cheques in joint account and he has gone to the extent of forging the signature of the complainant and also drawn the amount from the joint account through cheque bearing No.419306 drawn on the Subramanya Co-operative Bank. It is also observed that the Investigating Officer has conducted thorough investigation and sent the disputed and admitted signatures to the expert and got opinion and ultimately filed the

¶37

¶38

charge sheet against the accused for the offence stated above. Hence, it cannot come to the conclusion that there is no prima facie case against the petitioners to proceed with the trial. Hence, it requires the full fledged trial.

¶39

Having perused the reasons assigned by the Trial Judge while dismissing the application and also the very contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners, the fact that the matter is pending before the Supreme Court is also not in dispute. It is also important to note that in the similar cases filed against the petitioners, petitioners were acquitted and the said order of acquittal passed by the Trial Judge cannot come to the aid of the petitioners herein. The said judgment was also pronounced after considering the material on record. In the case on hand, the petitioners forged the signatures of the complainant to draw the amount, in support of which the FSL report is also collected. Hence, it requires trial. Without conducting the trial, the accused persons cannot be discharged. Therefore, I do not find any merit in the petition to set aside the order of the Trial Court dated 17.11.2018 and so also there is no

¶40

¶41

merit in the application to discharge the accused persons. Hence, it is not a fit case to exercise the powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.

¶42

In view of the discussion made above, I proceed to pass the following:-

¶43

ORDER

¶44

The petition is hereby rejected.

¶45

In view of rejection of the main petition, I.A., if any does not survive for consideration and the same stands disposed of.

¶46

Sd/JUDGE

¶47

PYR

N. J. Ravishankar v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

N. J. Ravishankar 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

Sri B T Manjappa @ B T Manjappa Gowda Vs State by Thirthahalli Police

Sri Jigar Laxmichand Chadva Vs the State of Karnataka

K J Dhananjaya Vs State of Karnataka

Mr Tapas Rudrapatna Vs the Enforcement Officer

Raja Gopala Reddy Vs Smt P N Suvarnamma

K.M. Noban Vs the State of Karnataka