Dismissed

Mr. J Shankar Naidu v. Sri. K S Nagendra

Karnataka HC11 Feb 2021CRL.RP/448/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single Judge of Karnataka High Court dismissed the Criminal Revision Petition challenging the dismissal of an application for discharge under Section 245(1) Cr.P.C. The Court held that initiating recovery proceedings before the Deputy Registrar of Chits does not legally bar the complainant from filing a private complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

What did the court decide?

The criminal revision petition praying for discharge under Section 245(1) Cr.P.C. is dismissed as there is no legal bar to the maintenance of the private complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable

Mr. J Shankar Naidu Vs Sri. K S Nagendra — Cheque Dishonour | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2021

¶2

BEFORE

¶3

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ASHOK G. NIJAGANNAVAR

¶4

CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.448 OF 2019

¶5

BETWEEN:

¶6

MR.J.SHANKAR NAIDU, S/O SRI D.JAYARAMU NAIDU, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, M/S SAS STAR, REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR, NO.80/1, 8^TH MAIN ROAD, 6^TH PHASE, 1^ST STAGE, WEST OF CHORD ROAD, RAJAJINAGAR, BENGALURU – 560 010. …PETITIONER

¶7

(BY SRI VARADARAJ R HAVALDAR AND PARAMESHWARAPPA, ADVOCATES)

¶8

AND:

¶9

SRI K.S.NAGENDRA, M/S SAN SAGAR CHITS PVT. LTD., REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR, NO.51/1 AND 52, 1^ST FLOOR, 1^ST STAGE, 6^TH PHASE, WEST OF CHORD ROAD, MANJUNATH NAGAR, BENGALURU – 560 010. ...RESPONDENT (RESPONDENT SERVED)

¶10

¶11

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 R/W 401 CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE XLII ADDL. C.M.M., BENGALURU IN C.C.NO.19448/2017 BY ORDER DATED 22.02.2019 AS PER ANNEXURE-A.

¶12

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

¶13

ORDER

¶14

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner-accused regarding admission.

¶15

This revision petition is directed against the order dated 22.02.2019 passed in C.C.No.19448/2017 passed by XLII Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru, dismissing the application filed under Section 245(1) Cr.P.C.

¶16

The facts stated in the petition are that the complainant

¶17

filed a private complaint against the revision petitioner-accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. On registering the said case, the accused appeared and filed application under Section 245(1) Cr.P.C. for discharge on the reason that the complainant has already initiated proceedings for recovery of the amount in dispute No.DRB-4-CFS/43/2016-17 before the Deputy Registrar of Chits, 4^th Zone, Bengaluru, and has

¶18

¶19

also filed a private complaint before the Magistrate Court by misusing the cheques given as security for repayment of chit amount. The Magistrate, has dismissed the said application. Being aggrieved by the said order, the revision petitioner is before this Court.

¶20

The only contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner-accused is that when the complainant has initiated recovery proceedings before the Deputy Registrar, 4^th Zone, Bengaluru, the private complaint filed against the revision petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I.Act is not maintainable. Thus, the revision petitioner-accused is entitled for discharge.

¶21

But in order to substantiate the said contention, the petitioner has not placed any relevant provision of law to show that there is legal bar for filing the complaint when the complainant has initiated the recovery proceedings before the Deputy Registrar.

¶22

Admittedly, six cheques have been issued by the revision petitioner-accused in favour of the respondent-complainant in respect of the transaction said to have been entered into

¶23

¶24

between them. Merely because the respondent-complainant has initiated the recovery proceedings before the Deputy Registrar is not a ground for discharge of the petitioner-accused. Under these circumstances, there are no valid grounds to admit the revision petition. Hence, the revision petition is dismissed.

¶25

Sd/JUDGE

¶26

BSR

Mr. J Shankar Naidu v. Sri. K S Nagendra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr. J Shankar Naidu v. Sri. K S Nagendra

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

Purandara Rai Vs Naveendra Naik

M S S R Chits (P) Ltd., Vs Image Aluminium

M Prasad Vs B Janaradhana

Rajaiah Vs Premameri

M/S Ideb Projects Private Limited Vs M/S Hdfc Bank Ltd.

State of Karnataka Vs Parvathamma