Partly allowed

Shyam Sunder Bansal v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC8 Dec 2023CRL.P/7458/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka partially allowed a criminal petition for quashing proceedings under Section 138 of the NI Act. Respondent consented to dropping specific petitioners who had made part payments, leading to the quashing of charges against them while others faced continued trial.

What did the court decide?

The criminal proceedings against Petitioners 1, 6, and 7 were quashed; prosecution against other accused to continue.

Shyam Sunder Bansal Vs the State of Karnataka — Cheque Dishonour | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

1 - NC: 2023:KHC:44776 CRL.P No. 7458 of 2017

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 8^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2023

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ CRIMINAL PETITION NO.7458 OF 2017

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SHYAM SUNDER BANSAL DIRECTOR, KANAKADHARA VENTURES PVT.LTD., 8-3-1114/1, KESHAV NAGAR, SREENAGAR COLONY,

¶8

HYDERABAD-73.

¶9

ANJI REDDY NALLAMALAPU DIRECTOR, KANAKADHARA VENTURES PVT.LTD., 8-3-1114/1, KESHAV NAGAR, SREENAGAR COLONY,

¶10

HYDERABAD-73.

¶11

Digitally signed by SUMA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

SREENIVAS TANIKELLA DIRECTOR, KANAKADHARA VENTURES PVT.LTD., 8-3-1114/1, KESHAV NAGAR, SREENAGAR COLONY, HYDERABAD-73.

¶13

SURESH BABU KULLURU DIRECTOR, KANAKADHARA VENTURES PVT.LTD., 8-3-1114/1, KESHAV NAGAR, SREENAGAR COLONY, HYDERABAD-73.

¶14

RAMESH BABU AMURI DIRECTOR, KANAKADHARA VENTURES PVT.LTD., 8-3-1114/1, KESHAV NAGAR, SREENAGAR COLONY, HYDERABAD-73.

¶15

2 - NC: 2023:KHC:44776 CRL.P No. 7458 of 2017

¶16

MALLAIAH GUNDA DIRECTOR, KANAKADHARA VENTURES PVT.LTD., 8-3-1114/1, KESHAV NAGAR, SREENAGAR COLONY, HYDERABAD-73.

¶17

LAXMINARAYANA AMBATI DIRECTOR, KANAKADHARA VENTURES PVT.LTD., 8-3-1114/1, KESHAV NAGAR, SREENAGAR COLONY, HYDERABAD-73.

¶18

…PETITIONERS

¶19

(BY SMT. M.D. ANURADHA URS, ADVOCATE)

¶20

AND:

¶21

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT, BENGALURU-560001.

¶22

WIPRO ENTERPRISES LTD. CONSUMER CARE AND LIGHTING DIVISION, REG. OFF AT DODDAKANNELLI, SARJAPUR ROAD, BANGALORE-560035.

¶23

KANAKADHARA VENTURES PVT.LTD., 8-3-1114/1, KESHAV NAGAR, SREENAGAR COLONY, HYDERABAD-73.

¶24

VENKATESWARA RAO POCHIRAJU, MANAGING DIRECTOR OF KANAKADHARA VENTURES PVT.LTD., 8-3-1114/1, KESHAV NAGAR, SREENAGAR COLONY, HYDERABAD-73.

¶25

VENKATA SUBBA RAO BOGGARAPU DIRECTOR, KANAKADHARA VENTURES PVT.LTD., 8-3-1114/1, KESHAV NAGAR, SREENAGAR COLONY, HYDERABAD-73.

¶26

¶27

NC: 2023:KHC:44776 CRL.P No. 7458 of 2017

¶28

RESPONDENT NOS.3 TO 5 ARE DELETED VIDE ORDER DATED 10.01.2018)

¶29

…RESPONDENTS

¶30

(BY SMT. N. ANITHA GIRISH, HIGH COURT GOVERNMENT PLEADER FOR RESPONDENT NO.1;

¶31

SRI. KEERTI KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.2;

¶32

VIDE ORDER DATED 10.01.2018, RESPONDENT NOS.3 TO 5 ARE DELETED)

¶33

THIS CRL.P IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 PRAYING TO QUASH THE C.C.NO.53813/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE LVII ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, BANGALORE.

¶34

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

¶35

ORDER

¶36

The petitioners have challenged the prosecution initiated against them by the respondent No.2 for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 in C.C.No.53813/2014 pending trial before the LVII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru.

¶37

The petitioners all contend that they are not the persons responsible for the conduct of the business of the Kankadhara Ventures Private Limited, which was the accused

¶38

¶39

NC: 2023:KHC:44776 CRL.P No. 7458 of 2017

¶40

before the Trial Court and therefore, the prosecution against them is unwarranted.

¶41

When the petition was listed for final hearing, the

¶42

learned counsel for the respondent No.2 has filed a memo which reads as follows:

¶43

"1. The accused No.4, 9 and 10 (i.e., Petitioner No.1- Shyam Sunder Bansal, Petitioner No.6Mallaiah Gunda & Petitioner No.7 Laxminarayana Ambati) in this case have made submissions that they were not incharge of the day to day management of the accused No.1 company, and as such the accused No. 2, being the Managing Director is arrayed as and accused, along with other Director the accused No. 3 and the Company. Also the accused No. 4, 9 and 10 (Petitioner No.1, 6 and 7 have together paid an amount of Rs.7,00,000/- to the complainant towards part payment of the cheque amount. In the above circumstances, the complainant/Respondent No.2 does not wish to pursue the matter against the accused No.4, 9 and 10 (Petitioner No.1, 6 & 7).

¶44

2. In the above circumstances the complainant/Respondent No.2 prays that the proceedings as against the accused No.4, 9 and

¶45

5 - NC: 2023:KHC:44776 CRL.P No. 7458 of 2017

¶46

10 (Petitioner No.1, 6 & 7) may be quashed and the said accused No.4, 9 and 10 may please be acquitted and the Complainant/Respondent No.2 may be permitted to proceed against the other accused/Petitioners before the Trial Court in the interest of justice."

¶47

In that view of the matter, this petition is allowedin-part and the prosecution of the petitioner Nos.1, 6 and 7 in C.C.No.53813/2014 for the offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act, pending on the file of LVII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru is quashed. However, the prosecution of the other accused shall continue before the Trial Court.

¶48

Sd/JUDGE

¶49

¶50

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 18

Shyam Sunder Bansal v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shyam Sunder Bansal v. the State of Karnataka

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

Thipperudraswamy T Vs Swathi

Sayeeda Nazimunnisa Vs Mr Mohammed Azam Ahmed

D Prakash Vs State of Karnataka Represented by

Professor Dr. Dhirendra v. Kubair Vs State of Karnataka

Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited Vs Sri Muyeed Pasha

Smt Nenu Bai Vs Sri K M Hemachandra