Dismissed

Sri Ashwin Mahendra v. Sri G M Kumar

Karnataka HC13 Jul 2023CRL.P/4305/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of two criminal petitions filed by accused persons seeking quashing of proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The court held that ambiguities in the cause title were curable and sufficient prima facie materials existed in the complaint, declining to interfere with the proceedings.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Petitions filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. were dismissed; pending applications were also dismissed.

Sri Ashwin Mahendra Vs Sri G M Kumar — Cheque Dishonour | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 13^TH DAY OF JULY, 2023

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.4305 OF 2021

¶7

C/W

¶8

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.4081 OF 2019

¶9

IN CRL.P.NO.4305 OF 2021

¶10

BETWEEN:

¶11

SRI.ASHWIN MAHENDRA S/O B.MAHENDRA AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS R/AT NO.301/10,

¶12

36^TH CROSS, 7^TH C MAIN, 4^TH BLOCK, JAYANAGAR, BENGALURU-560 011.

¶13

SRI.B.MAHENDRA S/O CHENNEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, R/AT NO.301/10, 36^TH CROSS, 7^TH MAIN, 4^TH BLOCK, JAYANAGAR, BENGALURU-560 011.

¶14

SRI.NANJUNDAIAH MAHENDRA, S/O NANJUNDAIAH, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, R/AT NO.5B, FLR-G,

¶15

¶16

KRISHNARAJU LAYOUT, 3^RD CROSS, 1^ST MAIN, DORASANIPALYA, BENGALURU-560 076.

¶17

SRI.RAMA REDDY S/O REDDDY, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, R/AT PHOENIX TOWERS, NO.16 & 16/1, BASEMENT FLOOR, MUSEUM ROAD, BENGALURU-560 001.

¶18

SRI.GANESH BASAVARAJ S/O BASAVRAJ, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, R/AT NO.295, 10^TH MAIN, 39C CROSS, 5^TH BLOCK, JAYANAGAR, BENGALURU-560 041.

¶19

... PETITIONERS

¶20

(BY SRI.B.R.DEEPAK, ADVOCATE FOR P.1) AND:

¶21

SRI.G.M.KUMAR S/O GANGADHARAPPA, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, R/AT NO.277, 4^TH STAGE, WEST OF CORD ROAD, INDUSTRIAL TOWN, BENGALURU-560 044. …RESPONDENT

¶22

(BY SRI.S.BALAKRISHNAN, ADVOCATE)

¶23

¶24

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING TO QUASH THE COMPLAINT AND ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.2210/2021 PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE XXIV A.S.C.J AND ACMM, BANGALORE AGAINST THE PETITIONERS FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 138 OF N.I.ACT AND ETC.,

¶25

IN CRL.P.NO.4081 OF 2019

¶26

BETWEEN:

¶27

SRI.ASHWIN MAHENDRA, S/O B MAHENDRA, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, RESIDING AT #301/10, 36^TH CROSS, 7^TH MAIN, 4^TH BLOCK, JAYANAGAR, BENGALURU-560 011.

¶28

...PETITIONER

¶29

(BY SRI.B.R.DEEPAK, ADVOCATE)

¶30

AND:

¶31

SRI.G.M.KUMAR S/O GANGADHARAPPA, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, OFFICE AT NO.32/1, 2, CRESCENT ROAD, HIGH GROUNDS, BANGALORE-560 001.

¶32

…RESPONDENT

¶33

(BY SRI.S.BALAKRISHNAN, ADVOCATE)

¶34

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING TO QUASH THE COMPLAINT AND ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.2182/2019 PRESENTLY PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE LEARNED XXII SCCH AND XVIII ADDITIONALL C.M.M.

¶35

¶36

AT BENGALURU AGAINST THE PETITIONER HEREIN FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 138 OF NI ACT AND ETC.,

¶37

THESE PETITIONS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 23.06.2023, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶38

ORDER

¶39

These captioned criminal petitions are filed by the petitioners - accused seeking quashing of the proceedings pending in C.C.No.2182/2019 on the file of the learned XXII SCCH & XVIII Additional C.M.M at Bengaluru and C.C.No.2210/2021 pending on the file of the XXIV ASCJ and ACMM, Bengaluru for the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short 'NI Act').

¶40

The petitioners are seeking quashing of proceedings

¶41

on the ground that complaint is not maintainable as proceedings are initiated without impleading the complainant as a party to the proceedings. Referring to the cause-title of the private complaint, the petitioners claim that on account of non-impleading company, the requisite ingredients of Section

¶42

¶43

141 of 'NI Act' are not complied and therefore, the entire proceedings stand vitiated.

¶44

The second ground on which proceedings are sought to be quashed is that cheque is dishonoured for no such reasons, which would attract an offence punishable under Section 138 of NI Act. Referring to the endorsement issued by the Bank, the petitioners claim that cheque is dishonored with an endorsement as "Drawers Signature Not as per Mandate" and therefore, it is contended that the reasons assigned for dishonour of cheque does not satisfy the ingredients of Section 138 of NI Act. Therefore, it is contended for want of materials indicating that cheque was issued for legally enforceable debt, complaint is not maintainable and therefore, the proceedings are sought to be quashed.

¶45

Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and learned counsel appearing for the respondent - complainant. I have given my anxious consideration to the

¶46

¶47

judgments relied on by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in Criminal Appeal No.1011/2010, while learned counsel appearing for respondent - complainant has placed reliance on the five judgments. Perused materials on record more particularly averments made in the complaint.

¶48

I have also given my anxious consideration to the judgment cited by both parties.

¶49

Though I find some force in the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for accused, on perusal of the averments made in para Nos.4 to 6 of the complaint, I am of the view that though there is some ambiguity in the description of the accused in the cause title of the private complaint. However, on reading the allegations made in the complaint, there are sufficient prima-facie materials indicating that the complainant advanced a sum of Rs.1,00,00,000/(Rupees One Crore Only) to the M/s.Eagle Sight Media Private Limited and Rs.3,00,00,000/- (Rupees Three Crores Only) to

¶50

¶51

the M/s.Eagle Sight Media Private Limited. There is also specific pleading that cheque was issued in favour of Eagle Sight Media Private Limited vide cheque bearing No.12271 dated 08.07.2014 for a sum of Rs.1,00,00,000/- (Rupees One Crore only) and cheques were also issued for a sum of Rs.3,00,00,000/- (Rupees Three Crores Only) in favour of M/s.Eagle Sight Media Pvt. Ltd. on various dates drawn on Corporation Bank, Madivala Branch, Bengaluru - 68.

¶52

At para No.6, there is a reference that all the Directors of the Company looked after the affairs of the Company. There is also specific allegation at para No.6 of the complaint that the accused, who being the authorized signatory of M/s.Eagle Sight Media Private Limited, has issued a cheque bearing No.130384 dated 25.02.2019 for a sum of Rs.1,00,00,000/- (Rupees One Crore Only) and has also issued a cheque bearing No.138761 dated 19.02.2020 for a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) drawn on Corporation Bank, Madivala Branch, Bengaluru - 68.

¶53

¶54

If all these significant details are taken into consideration, I would find that there are specific averments with regard to description of the company-accused, which are found in unequivocal terms at para Nos.4 to 6 of the complaint and therefore, even if there is some error in the cause-title in regard to description of the parties or company, such a defect is curable defect. Therefore, I am of the view that allegations made in the private complaint presented under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. for the offence punishable under Section 138 of 'NI Act' are clearly found to be in consonance with Section 138 of 'NI Act'.

¶55

In that view of the matter, I am not inclined to interfere with the order under challenge. Hence, I pass the following;

¶56

ORDER

¶57

(i) Criminal Petitions are dismissed .

¶58

¶59

(ii) Pending applications, if any, are

¶60

also dismissed.

¶61

Sd/JUDGE

¶62

NBM

Sri Ashwin Mahendra v. Sri G M Kumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Ashwin Mahendra v. Sri G M Kumar

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

Sri Srinivasa Murthy Vs the Special Deputy Commissioner

Sri Doddavenkatappa Since Dead by Lrs Vs the Deputy Commissioner

Michael Joseph Vs the State of Kanataka

Smt Narayanamma Vs the Assistant Commissioner

Smt Yalaveni Vs the State of Karnataka

M/S Priyanka Gehlot Vs M/S Nxtgen Data Center