Dismissed

C.N.Nagamani v. C.D.Ravi

Karnataka HC13 Dec 2023CRL.A/818/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal appeal under Section 378 Cr.P.C against an acquittal for an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the High Court considered allegations of account closure and misuse of a cheque. The court found the cheque was used as security for a third party's loan which was later discharged, and dismissed the appeal, confirming the acquittal.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Appeal dismissed; Impugned judgment of acquittal in C.C. No.260/2007 confirmed.

C.N.Nagamani Vs C.D.Ravi — Cheque Dishonour | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2023:KHC:45292 CRL.A No. 818 of 2013

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 13^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2023 BEFORE

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA

¶5

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 818 OF 2013 (A)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

C.N.NAGAMANI D/O VENKATACHALAYYA AGE: MINOR R/O BRAHMIN STREET C N HALLI TOWN TUMKUR DIST

¶8

…APPELLANT

¶9

(BY SRI. M V HIREMATH, ADVOCATE) AND:

¶10

C.D.RAVI S/O DATTATREYA AGE: MAJOR R/O BRAHMIN STREET C N HALLI TOWN TUMKUR DIST

¶11

Digitally signed by SANDHYA S Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶12

…RESPONDENT

¶13

(BY SRI.RAJANNA., ADVOCATE)

¶14

THIS CRL.A. IS FILED U/S.378(4) CR.P.C BY THE ADV. FOR THE APPELLANT PRAYING THAT THIS HON'BLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT DATED 15.07.2013 PASSED BY THE PRL. C.J. AND J.M.F.C., CHIKKANAYAKANAHALLY IN C.C.NO.260/2007 -ACQUITTING THE RESPONDENT/ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 138 OF N.I.ACT.

¶15

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ARGUMENTS, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

2 - NC: 2023:KHC:45292 CRL.A No. 818 of 2013

¶17

ORDER

¶18

The complainant/appellant has preferred this appeal against judgment of acquittal passed by the Prl.Civil Judge and JMFC, Chikkanayakanahalli in CC No.260/2007 dated 15.7.2013 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Trial Court’).

¶19

Brief facts of the case of complainant-appellant are:

¶20

Accused issued Cheque No.418890 for an amount of Rs.60,000/drawn on Canara Bank, Chikkanayakanahalli Branch in favour of the complainant. The complainant presented the cheque on 29.05.2006. The same came to be dishonoured as ‘Account closed’ as per endorsement dated 29.05.2006. Therefore, the complainant issued legal notice dated 30.05.2006 through her Advocate calling upon the accused to repay the cheque amount within 15 days. Notice was served upon the accused on 14.6.2006. But, the accused neither

¶21

responded nor complied with the demand. Hence, complainant filed a case under Section 138 of NI Act.

¶22

3 - NC: 2023:KHC:45292 CRL.A No. 818 of 2013

¶23

After taking cognizance against the accused

¶24

for commission of offence under Section 138 of NI Act, case was registered in C.C. No.260/2007. Summon was issued to the accused, in response to that, accused appeared before the trial Court and was enlarged on bail. Substance of plea was recorded. Accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

¶25

On behalf of complainant, herself was examined as PW.1 and got examined one more witness as PW.2, totally six documents were marked as Ex.P1 to P6 and closed the evidence on the side of the complainant. Statement under Section 313 Cr.PC was recorded. The accused has totally denied the case of PW.1 and lead his evidence as DW.1 and fourteen documents were marked as Ex. D1 to D14.

¶26

On hearing the arguments, the trial Court has acquitted the accused.

¶27

¶28

NC: 2023:KHC:45292 CRL.A No. 818 of 2013

¶29

Being aggrieved by the impugned judgment of acquittal, the appellant-complainant has preferred this appeal.

¶30

Sri M.V.Hiremath, learned counsel for the appellant has submitted his arguments that, the trial Court has not properly appreciated the evidence on record in accordance with law and facts. The judgment of the trial Court is not valid in law holding that the Bank account was closed and thus, the Judgment rendered is erroneous in law.

¶31

8. The judgment of the trial Court is not valid in

¶32

law as, the accused had closed his account on 9.11.2005. The evidence of Manager of the said Bank substantiates this fact whereas, the cheque is dated 8.4.2006. Thus, it is clear that the account was closed very long back i.e. prior to the issue of cheque in question. Further, the trial

¶33

Court observed that it is not the case that the cheque was issued first and later on account was closed so as to

¶34

5 - NC: 2023:KHC:45292 CRL.A No. 818 of 2013

¶35

attract the penal liability. Hence, the trial Court extended the benefit of doubt to the accused. The Trial Court has ignored the statutory presumption under Section 139 of N.I. Act. On all these grounds, the appellant sought for allowing this criminal appeal.

¶36

As against this, Sri Rajanna, learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that, the accused has not borrowed loan from the complainant. Accused has issued the cheque in dispute to the Srinidhi Finance Company as security in respect of loan obtained by one C.S. Raghu. Raghu has discharged the loan as per Ex.D13 and D14. After discharge of loan, Raghu received the cheque back and on-demand pronote as per Ex.P12. Thereafter, Raghu has not returned the cheque to the accused and he has misused the cheque. In this regard, complainant-Nagamani lodged a complaint in PCR No.58/98 at Chikkanayakanahalli Police Station against accused and two others and it was re-numbered as CC

¶37

¶38

NC: 2023:KHC:45292 CRL.A No. 818 of 2013

¶39

No.196/1999 under Exs.D1 to D5. In this case, on 24.11.2008, accused nos. 1 to 3 were discharged from commission of offence as per order dated 24.11.2008. Hence, the question of issuing cheque in favour of the complainant by the accused does not arise. He submits that, the trial Court has properly appreciated the material on record and passed the impugned judgment of acquittal and sought for dismissal of this appeal.

¶40

Further, accused has also filed suit against said C.S.Raghu, complainant - Nagamani and Srinidhi Finance Company in OS No.215/2006 as per Ex.D6. Notice ordered in the said case returned with shara `D2 not in the village, returned to the sender'.

¶41

Having heard the arguments of both the counsel and on perusal of records, following points would arise for my consideration:

¶42

i) Whether the complainant has made out ground to interfere with the impugned judgment of acquittal?

¶43

7 - NC: 2023:KHC:45292 CRL.A No. 818 of 2013

¶44

ii) What order?

¶45

My answer to the above points are as

¶46

under:

¶47

(i) in the negative

¶48

(ii) as per final order

¶49

Regarding point No.1:

¶50

I have carefully examined the materials placed

¶51

by both the parties. Ex.P-3 the legal notice issued by the complainant addressed to the accused reveals that the accused issued a cheque to discharge hand loan of Rs.60,000/- i.e. cheque no.418890 for a sum of Rs.60,000/- on 08.04.2006 drawn on Canara Bank, Chikkanayakanahalli Branch. The complainant has stated the same in her complaint. Ex.P1 is cheque dated 08.04.2006. It is for Rs.60,000/- . The same was presented to the Bank and it came to be returned with shara "Account Closed”. The complainant has not disclosed that on which date the accused has received the loan.

¶52

8 - NC: 2023:KHC:45292 CRL.A No. 818 of 2013

¶53

In the evidence of PW.1 Nagamani she has clearly admitted that she has lodged a complaint against the accused and two others in PCR No.58/98 for the commission of offence punishable under Sections 323, 324, 504, 506, read with Sec.34 of Indian Penal Code and the same was registered in C.C.No.28/1998 in which the accused were acquitted by order dated 14.12.1999.

¶54

During the evidence of PW.1, PW1 has admitted that the cheque in dispute was issued as a security in favour of Srinidhi Finance for obtaining loan by one Raghu. She has also admitted that the accused has filed a suit in OS No.215/2006 for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from receiving the amount through cheque No.418890. In this regard certified copy of plaint in above case is marked as Ex.D6.

¶55

DW.1 has adduced oral evidence and produced Ex.D13 which reveals that one Raghu has received Cheque No.418890 from M/s. Srinidhi Finance. Ex.D13

¶56

9 - NC: 2023:KHC:45292 CRL.A No. 818 of 2013

¶57

endorsement issued by M/s.Srinidhi Finance also reveals that Cheque no.418890 along with Ex.D12 the Bank on demand pronote and consideration receipt signed by C.S.Raghu and C.D.Ravi. Ex.D10 is the debit voucher signed by C.S.Raghu and C.D.Ravi which is given to Srinidhi Finance, Aralepete, Chikkanayakanahalli.

¶58

On careful perusal of these materials, it is crystal clear that the cheque in dispute is issued to M/s.Srinidhi Finance as a security for the loan which was raised by one C.S.Raghu and after discharge of the loan amount, Srinidhi Finance has returned this cheque, pronote and consideration receipt signed by C.S.Raghu and C.D.Ravi. Raghu himself has misused this cheque and filed the complaint. Apart from this, the complainant/appellant has suppressed the facts with regard to the criminal case pending between the complainant and the accused Ravi and two others. During the pendency of this criminal case between the accused and the complainant why the complainant has

¶59

10 -

¶60

NC: 2023:KHC:45292 CRL.A No. 818 of 2013

¶61

lent a loan of Rs.60,000/- and why the accused has issued the cheque in favour of the complainant has not been explained by the complainant. The very conduct of the complainant is quite unnatural and unbelievable.

¶62

The evidence placed by both the parties reveal

¶63

that the complainant has misused the cheque which was received by one Raghu from M/s.Srinidhi Finance and filed a false complaint against this accused. The learned Trial Judge has properly appreciated the evidence on record in accordance with law and facts. I do not find any legal infirmity or illegality in the impugned judgment of acquittal. Hence, I answer the point raised above in the negative.

¶64

For the aforesaid discussion, I proceed to pass the following:

¶65

ORDER

¶66

Appeal is dismissed.

¶67

11 -

¶68

NC: 2023:KHC:45292 CRL.A No. 818 of 2013

¶69

Judgment dated: 15.07.2013 passed by the PRL.

¶70

CIVIL JUDGE and JMFC, at Chikkanayakanahalli in

¶71

C.C. NO.260/2007 is confirmed.

¶72

Send a copy of this judgment along with TCR to

¶73

the trial Court.

¶74

Sd/JUDGE

¶75

Sk/-

C.N.Nagamani v. C.D.Ravi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

C.N.Nagamani v. C.D.Ravi

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 S Kumar Vs Sri Shanmugam

M/S.Kadidal Supari Company Vs M/S.Nisarga Supari Traders

Siddegowda M Vs R Somashekara

State of Karnataka Vs Hanumaiah @ Raju

Smt. Gowhar Unnisa Vs T Rajegowda

B Srinivas Naik Vs B Thammaiah