Allowed

Sunil Kumar v. State by Cubbon Park Police Station

Karnataka HC3 Aug 2023CRL.P/2411/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Karnataka High Court allowed a criminal petition filed under Section 482 CrPC seeking quashing of proceedings against accused Nos. 1 and 2 in a cheque dishonour case. The court held that since the defacto-complainant-bank had withdrawn its claim and agreed to withdraw criminal proceedings under a compromised settlement, continuing the litigation would amount to an abuse of the process of law.

What did the court decide?

Quashed the impugned proceedings in C.C.No.38922/2010 insofar as it relates to accused Nos. 1 and 2.

Sunil Kumar Vs State by Cubbon Park Police Station — Cheque Dishonour | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2023:KHC:27271 CRL.P No. 2411 of 2022

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 3^RD DAY OF AUGUST, 2023

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 2411 OF 2022

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SUNIL KUMAR S/O LATE R. PREM AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS R/AT NO.A-4, BDA FLATS AUSTIN LAYOUT TOWN NEELASANDRA, BENGALURU-560 047.

¶9

VEENA W/O SUNIL KUMAR, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, R/AT NO.A-4, BDA FLATS, AUSTIN LAYOUT TOWN, NEELASANDRA, BENGALURU - 560 047.

¶10

…PETITIONERS

¶11

(BY SRI. ASHWATH C.M., ADVOCATE)

¶12

Digitally signed by B K MAHENDRAKUMAR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

AND:

¶14

STATE BY CUBBON PARK POLICE STATION BENGALURU - 560001 REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BENGALURU-560001.

¶15

STATE BANK OF INDIA CHURCH STREET BRANCH BENGALURU-560001 REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF MANAGER.

¶16

…RESPONDENTS

¶17

(BY SMT. RASHMI JADHAV, HCGP FOR R-1; SRI. FRANCIS XAVIER, ADVOCATE FOR R-2)

¶18

¶19

NC: 2023:KHC:27271 CRL.P No. 2411 of 2022

¶20

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, PRAYING TO QUASH THE FURTHER PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE PETITIONER IN C.C.NO.38922/2010 PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE HON'BLE IV ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE AT BENGALURU FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 406,409,420 OF IPC.

¶21

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

¶22

ORDER

¶23

The petitioners who are sought to be prosecuted under Sections 406, 409, 420 of Indian Penal Code are before this Court.

¶24

The case of the prosecution is that, accused Nos. 4 and 6 had issued four cheques in favour of accused Nos.1 and 2 and in turn, accused Nos.1 and 2 presented the said cheques for discounting with the defacto-complainant-Bank and received money from the Bank and when the Bank presented the said cheques for realization, the same came to be dishonoured for want of funds.

¶25

Learned Magistrate after taking cognizance of the aforesaid offence issued summons to the petitioners. Taking exception of the same, accused No.1 and 2 are before this Court.

¶26

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that, the accused herein had entered into Compromise Settlement deed with the defacto-complainant-Bank and in terms of the said settlement, the accused Nos.1 and 2 have paid a sum of Rs.25,00,000/- towards full and final settlement under the OTS scheme and as per the terms of the settlement, the defacto-

¶27

¶28

NC: 2023:KHC:27271 CRL.P No. 2411 of 2022

¶29

complainant-Bank had agreed to withdraw the impugned proceedings.

¶30

On the other hand, learned counsel for the defactocomplainant-Bank submits that, mere closure of the loan account under the One-Time-Settlement (OTS) scheme will not absolve the accused from criminal liability. In support, he places reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION VS. HARI SINGH RANK AND OTHERS reported in (2019) 16 Supreme Court Cases (Cri) 413: 2017 SCC OnLine SC 1837.

¶31

Considered the submission made by the learned counsel for the parties.

¶32

It is settled law, that mere closure of the loan account under the OTS scheme will not absolve the criminal liability. In the instant case, accused Nos.1 and 2 herein agreed to settled the loan account subject to the defactocomplainant withdrawing the impugned proceedings.

¶33

Perusal of the Compromise Settlement Certificate, at Annexure-D reads thus:

¶34

"2. Accordingly, we withdraw our claim against the above borrowers in respect of these above mentioned accounts. Wish to inform withdrawal of any legal proceedings against Mr. Sunil Kumar P and Mrs. Veena R in connection with the dues owing to the bank in the above mentioned accounts."

¶35

The impugned proceeding is the only proceeding pending against the Accused herein. The defecto complainant-

¶36

¶37

NC: 2023:KHC:27271 CRL.P No. 2411 of 2022

¶38

Bank having agreed to withdraw the criminal proceedings against the accused herein, subject to closure of the loan account under the OTS scheme, the continuation of the criminal proceedings will be an abuse of process of law.

¶39

10 Accordingly, I pass the following:

¶40

ORDER

¶41

i) Criminal Petition is allowed.

¶42

ii) Impugned proceedings in C.C.No.38922/2010 on the file of the IV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Bengaluru, insofar it relates to accused No.1 and 2 is hereby quashed.

¶43

Sd/-

¶44

JUDGE

¶45

Sunil Kumar v. State by Cubbon Park Police Station

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sunil Kumar v. State by Cubbon Park Police Station

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Musthafa Vs State of Karnataka

Anand v Vs State by Ccb (Eow) Bangalore

Yogananda T Vs State by Mandya West Police Mandya

Sri. Manjunatha. P. K. Vs State of Karnataka

Shri. Rajappa. Y Vs State of Karnataka

Shreenivasa Vs the State of Karnataka