Allowed

Shri H R Satishchandra v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC1 Feb 2022CRL.P/3072/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. challenging the taking of cognizance on a criminal complaint alleging forgery and cheque dishonour. The Court held that the 'B' Report was not rejected and no prima facie case existed. It was guided by Kamalapati Trivedi guidelines. The proceedings were quashed as the complaint appeared to harass petitioners in a Trust dispute.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Petition allowed and proceedings in C.C.No.3613/2013 before IV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru are quashed.

Shri H R Satishchandra Vs State of Karnataka — Cheque Dishonour | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 1^ST DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2022

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO.3072 OF 2013

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SHRI H R SATISHCHANDRA, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, S/O LATE SHRI H R RAMACHANDRAN, CHAIRMAN, J C KALA EDUCATIONAL & CULTURAL TRUST, RESIDING AT B-1, K H B COLONY, PUTTENAHALLI, YELAHANKA, BANGALORE-560 106.

¶8

SMT. H.K. SHARADAMBA, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, W/O B S PHANIRAJ, RESIDING AT NO.5001, ANRIYA DWELLING TON, LOTTEGOLLAHALLI, RMV II STAGE, BANGALORE-560 094.

¶9

SMT. MANJU P, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, D/O SHRI B S PHANIRAJ, RESIDING AT NO.107, SEENAPPA LAYOUT, RMV II STAGE, BANGALORE-560 094. ...PETITIONERS

¶10

(BY SRI G.S. BHAT, ADVOCATE)

¶11

¶12

AND:

¶13

STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR OFFICE OF THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE,

¶14

THROUGH: YALAHANKA NEW TOWN POLICE STATION.

¶15

SHRI C R CHANDRAN, S/O LATE C P RAMASWAMY, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, RESIDING AT S-2/3, 2^ND MAIN ROAD, SFS-208, OPP: MOTHER DIARY YELAHANKA NEW TOWN,

¶16

BANGALORE-560 064.

¶17

…RESPONDENTS

¶18

(BY SMT. LEENA C SHIVAPURMATH, HCGP FOR R1; SRI SHYAM KOUNDINYA A S, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶19

¶20

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.3613/2013 PENDING BEFORE THE COURT OF IV ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITON MAGISTRATE, BANGALORE.

¶21

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING/PHYSICAL HEARING, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶22

¶23

O R D E R

¶24

Respondent No.2 filed a private complaint in PCR No. 19352/2010 against the petitioners for the offences punishable under Sections 384, 406, 420, 465, 468 and 469 alleging that petitioners have forged the meeting letters and passed resolutions to oust the respondent No.2 from the Trust. It is further alleged that petitioner No.1 has fabricated cheque bearing no. 504161 drawn on Indian bank of PME Trust and presented it for encashment through another Trust in the name of J.C.Kala Educational and Cultural Trust (for short ‘JCKE&CT’) without conducting board meetings. The cheque was returned for want of funds. The Jurisdictional Court ordered for investigation under section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. The Police submitted ‘B’ Report after investigation to which the respondent No.2 filed protest petition. After perusing the protest petition and recording the sworn statement, the jurisdictional court ordered to register C.C.No.3613/2013 against petitioners for the offences punishable under sections 406, 420, 465, 468 r/w 34 IPC. Hence this petition.

¶25

¶26

Learned counsel appearing for petitioners submit that in the absence of any material that the petitioners have committed the aforesaid offences, the learned Magistrate has committed an error in taking cognizance of the aforesaid offences against the petitioners and the same is not sustainable in law.

¶27

On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.2 and learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the State would justify in taking of the cognizance of the aforesaid offences against the petitioners.

¶28

I have considered the submissions of the learned

¶29

counsel for the parties.

¶30

The allegations in the complaint is that the petitioner

¶31

No.1 has forged the signature of respondent No.2 and tried to borrow an amount of Rs.45,00,000/- drawn on Indian Bank of PME Trust through another Trust in the name of JCKE&CT. Further petitioners have ousted the respondent No.2 by conducting false meeting letters and resolutions. However, no

¶32

¶33

material is placed before the learned magistrate to substantiate the allegation that the Petitioners have forged the signature of the Respondent No.2 on the cheque and also created documents to oust the Respondent No.2 from the Trust. The Respondent No.2 having not made out any prima facie case against the Petitioners, the taking of cognizance of the aforesaid offences against the petitioners is without any substance.

¶34

Having regard to the fact that respondent No.2 had filed O.S. Nos.826/2010, 1972/2010 and 5525/2010 restraining the petitioners from interfering into affairs of Trust, which were subsequently withdrawn as not pressed clearly implies that the dispute between the parties arises out of alleged removal of Respondent No.2 from the Trust, but, however complaint has been filed by giving criminal texture so as to harass the Petitioners.

¶35

Even otherwise the taking of cognizance without rejecting the ‘B’ report at the first instance is impermissible in view of guidelines issued by the Apex Court in the case of Kamalapati Trivedi v. State of Bengal reported in (1980) SCC 91.

¶36

¶37