Allowed

Smt. Sunita v. Pradeep S/O. Basavaraj Yaragatti

Karnataka HC4 Nov 2022CRL.P/100646/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A single-judge High Court criminal petition seeks quashing of proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act against petitioners who were company directors when money was invested but had ceased to be directors before a cheque was issued for such return, finding complaint unsustainable.

What did the court decide?

Impugned proceeding in C.C. No.2132/2020 pending before the II Additional Civil Judge & JMFC, Gokak, insofar as it relates to petitioners-accused Nos.3 and 4 is hereby quashed.

Smt. Sunita Vs Pradeep S/O. Basavaraj Yaragatti — Cheque Dishonour | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

CRL.P No. 100646 of 2022

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

¶4

DATED THIS THE 4^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2022

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

¶7

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 100646 OF 2022

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SMT. SUNITA W/O. BHARATKUMAR AITAWADE AGE. 45 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEWIFE R/O. NO. 212, VASUNDRA HEIGHTS, 4TH CROSS, VIDHANSOUDHA LAYOUT, PAPAREDDY PALYA, 2ND STAGE, NAGARABHAVI, BENGALURU- 560 0722.

¶10

SMT. VIDYA W/O. SAGARAITAWADE AGE. 35 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEWIFE, R/O. ALAGAWADI - 591 317 TQ. RAIBAG, DIST. BELAGAVI, NOW R/AT. NO. 95, 1ST F MAIN J.S. NAGAR, S.S. PURAM, NANDINI LAYOUT, BENGALURU - 560 096.

¶11

…PETITIONERS

¶12

(BY SRI. CHETAN MUNNOLI, ADVOCATE)

¶13

Digitally signed by SAMREEN AYUB DESHNUR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH, DHARWAD.

¶14

AND:

¶15

PRADEEP S/O. BASAVARAJ YARAGATTI AGE. 31 YEARS, OCC. SERVICE, R/O. H.NO. 64/217/2, MAHALINGESHWAR NAGAR, GOKAK- 591307, DIST. BELAGAVI.

¶16

…RESPONDENT

¶17

(RESPONDENT SERVED)

¶18

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.P.C., SEEKING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN CC NO.2132/2020 PENDING ON FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL CIVIL

¶19

¶20

CRL.P No. 100646 of 2022

¶21

JUDGE AND JMFC, GOKAK REGISTERED FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE U/S 138 OF N.I. ACT IN SO FAR IT RELATES TO ACCUSED NO.3 AND 4 I.E., PETITIONERS.

¶22

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

¶23

ORDER

¶24

A private complaint is filed under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short, ‘the Act’), alleging that the cheque, which was issued by the Company in favour of the complainant, when presented for realisation was dishonoured for want of funds. The learned Magistrate, after recording the sworn statement of the complainant, took cognizance of the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Act and issued summons to the accused. Taking exception to the same, the petitioners-accused Nos.3 and 4 are before this Court.

¶25

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the petitioners-accused Nos.3 and 4 ceased to be the Directors of the Company with effect

¶26

¶27

CRL.P No. 100646 of 2022

¶28

from 22.03.2017, which is evident from Form No.DIR-12. Hence, he submits that the registration of the complaint against the petitioners-accused Nos.3 and 4 is impermissible.

¶29

learned counsel appearing for the respondent/complainant submits that the

¶30

petitioners/accused were directors on the date when the complainant invested the money with the petitioner/accused company and cheque was issued by the company in question for returning the amount invested by the respondent/complaint and hence he submits that the learned Magistrate has rightly taken cognizance of the aforesaid offence and same does not warrant any interference.

¶31

The respondent-complainant though served

¶32

with the notice has remained absence.

¶33

I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners.

¶34

¶35

CRL.P No. 100646 of 2022

¶36

The cheque in question was issued on

¶37

31.08.2020. The petitioners, who were the Directors of the

¶38

Company, ceased to be the Directors of the Company with effect from 22.03.2017 which is evident from the Form No.DIR-12 issued by Registrar of the Companies and the same has remained uncontroverted. Hence, it implies that the petitioners ceased to be the Directors of the Companies as on the date of issuance of the cheque. Hence, registration of the complaint against the petitioners for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Act is not sustainable. Accordingly, I pass the following:

¶39

ORDER

¶40

The criminal petition is allowed. The impugned proceeding in C.C. No.2132/2020 pending on the file of the II Additional Civil Judge & JMFC, Gokak, insofar as it relates to petitionersaccused Nos.3 and 4 is hereby quashed.

¶41

Sd/JUDGE

¶42

Smt. Sunita v. Pradeep S/O. Basavaraj Yaragatti

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Sunita v. Pradeep S/O. Basavaraj Yaragatti

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

Venkatesh K Vs the Election Commission of India

Sri. Somashekarappa R Vs State of Karnataka

Smt. A.V. Gayathri Shanthegowda Vs Election Commission of India

Sri. Praveen S. Reddy Vs Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike

Smt. Sunita W/O Bharatkumar Aitawade Vs Malikjan S/O Bhaskar Sannakki

Smt. Sunita W/O Bharatkumar Aitawade Vs Basavaraj W/O Mallappa Yaragatti