Dismissed

M. Srinivasa v. Radha Ramakrishnan

Karnataka HC11 Aug 2021CRL.P/988/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka dismissed two criminal petitions filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to quash proceedings arising from cheques dishonored under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The court held that cheques issued as compensation for loss sustained can constitute a legally enforceable debt, noting that the petitioner can rebut evidence during trial regarding the nature of th

What did the court decide?

The petitions filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. were dismissed as devoid of merits.

M. Srinivasa Vs Radha Ramakrishnan — Cheque Dishonour | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 11^TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2021

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION No.986 OF 2021 C/W CRIMINAL PETITION No.988 OF 2021

¶7

In Crl.P.No.986/2021

¶8

BETWEEN

¶9

M.Srinivasa Aged about 58 years, S/o M.Ramaraju, R/at No.550, 1^st Floor, 2^nd Block, 3^rd Main, R.T.Nagar, Bengaluru-560032.

¶10

…Petitioner

¶11

(By Sri Shankaranarayana Bhat B., Advocate)

¶12

AND

¶13

Mrs. Shobana G. Subramaniam, Aged about 54 years, W/o Sri N.Ganapathi Subramaniam, R/at No.171, Adarsh Vista, Vibhuthipura, Basavanagar, Bengaluru-560037.

¶14

…Respondent

¶15

(By Sri Vikram Simha, Advocate)

¶16

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., praying to quash the entire proceedings in C.C.No.25968/2019 on the file of the XII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru.

¶17

¶18

In Crl.P.No.988/2021

¶19

BETWEEN

¶20

M.Srinivasa Aged about 58 years, S/o M.Ramaraju, R/at No.550, 1^st Floor, 2^nd Block, 3^rd Main, R.T.Nagar, Bengaluru-560032. Proprietor of Sree Estates

¶21

…Petitioner

¶22

(By Sri Shankaranarayana Bhat B., Advocate)

¶23

AND

¶24

Radha Ramakrishnan, Aged about 79 years, W/o late Ramakrishnan, Presently R/at No.25, Mullai St. Fatima Nagar, Valasaravakkam, Chennai, Tamilnadu-600087, And also R/at No.171, Adarsh Vista, Vibhuthipura, Basavanagar, Bengaluru-560037.

¶25

…Respondent

¶26

(By Sri Vikram Simha, Advocate)

¶27

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., praying to quash the entire proceedings in C.C.No.25696/2019 on the file of the XII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru.

¶28

These Criminal Petitions coming on for admission this day through video conferencing , the Court made the following:

¶29

¶30

ORDER

¶31

These two petitions are disposed of by a common order.

¶32

Heard the petitioner’s counsel and the

¶33

respondent’s counsel.

¶34

These two petitions are filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., for quashing the proceedings in C.C.No.25698/2019 and C.C.No.25696/2019, respectively, on the file of the XII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru.

¶35

The proceedings before the Magistrate are

¶36

in connection with an offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act (‘Act’ for short).

¶37

Since the cheques said to have been issued by the accused to the complainant were dishonored for want of sufficient funds in the bank account of the accused, the complainant has initiated action under Section 138 of the Act.

¶38

¶39

It is the argument of the petitioner’s counsel that the complaint does not indicate any transaction giving rise to legally enforceable debt within the meaning of explanation to Section 138 of the Act. His submission is that the complainant still continues to be the owner of the property, there is no transfer of title from accused to complainant. If for some other reason, cheques were issued, it cannot be brought within the ambit of explanation to Section 138 of the Act.

¶40

It is difficult to accept the submission of the petitioner’s counsel. In para 9 of the complaint, it is clearly stated that when the complainant contacted the accused and questioned him as to why he had undertaken construction in the land sold to him, the accused is said to have issued cheques towards compensation for the loss sustained by the complainant. Therefore the complaints in both the cases indicate a liability in respect of which cheques

¶41

¶42

were issued. Just because the ownership still continues with the complainant, it cannot be said that the reason given in the complaint for issuing the cheques cannot be brought within the ambit of explanation to Section 138 of the Act. The petitioners can rebut the evidence of the complainant during trial if there does not exist legally enforceable debt.

¶43

Petitions are devoid of merits. They are dismissed .

¶44

Sd/JUDGE

¶45

Kmv/-

M. Srinivasa v. Radha Ramakrishnan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M. Srinivasa v. Radha Ramakrishnan

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. Mohammed Azeez Vs State of Karnataka

Mr. Mohammed Azeez Vs State of Karnataka

Sri N C Ashok Kumar Vs the State of Karnataka

M. Srinivasa Vs Mrs. Shobana G Subramaniam

Sri Manjunatha B K @ Manju Vs State by

The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Vs M/S People Tech It Consultancy Private Limited