Quashed

Smt. Rajitha Govardhan v. Smt. Geetha Madhusudhan

Karnataka HC13 Dec 2023WP/21894/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka quashed Section 138 proceedings against the petitioner, finding full settlement of the disputed amount via RTGS prior to the return of the dishonoured cheque, rendering the prosecution an abuse of process.

What did the court decide?

The prosecution of the petitioner in C.C. No.58048/2018 for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, is quashed.

Smt. Rajitha Govardhan Vs Smt. Geetha Madhusudhan — Cheque Dishonour | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

1 - NC: 2023:KHC:45481 WP No. 21894 of 2019

¶2

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

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 21894 OF 2019 (GM-RES)

¶5

BETWEEN:

¶6

SMT. RAJITHA GOVARDHAN W/O LATE GOVARDHAN, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, NO.14, APARTMENT NO.1, AMRUTHA RESIDENCY, OLD POST OFFICE ROAD, DODDANEKUNDI, K.R. PURAM HOBLI, BENGALURU-560037.

¶7

…PETITIONER

¶8

(BY SRI. RANGARAMU V., ADVOCATE)

¶9

AND:

¶10

Digitally signed by BS RAVIKUMAR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶11

SMT. GEETHA MADHUSUDHAN W/O MADHUSUDHAN, MAJOR, R/AT PEASANT VILLA APARTMENT, VASA LAYOUT, DODDANEKUNDI, K.R. PURAM HOBLI, BENGALURU-560037. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. MURALIDHAR S., ADVOCATE) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA READ WITH SECTION 482 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 PRAYING TO QUASH THE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.58048/2018 ON THE FILE OF LVIII ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, MAYOHALL, BANGALORE, THE COPY OF ANNEXURE-A AND ETC.

¶12

¶13

NC: 2023:KHC:45481 WP No. 21894 of 2019

¶14

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

ORDER

¶16

The petitioner has challenged the prosecution launched by the respondent in C.C. No.58048/2018, which was initially filed before the 58^th Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Mayohall, Bengaluru, (henceforth referred to as ‘the Trial Court’) and presently pending trial before the XXXIV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Mayohall, Bengaluru, for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short, ‘the N.I. Act’).

¶17

The respondent filed a private complaint against the petitioner alleging an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, due to the dishonour of three cheques drawn by the petitioner favouring her, which were drawn to settle a claim in O.S. No.2238/2008 before the XVII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru. The Trial Court took

¶18

3 - NC: 2023:KHC:45481 WP No. 21894 of 2019

¶19

cognizance of the offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I. Act and issued process to the petitioner.

¶20

Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has filed this petition.

¶21

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the respondent herein filed O.S. No.2238/2008 for partition and separate possession of her share in the suit schedule properties. A compromise was reported in terms of which the petitioner/defendant No.2(a) in the said suit

¶22

had agreed to pay a sum of Rs.30,00,000/- to the respondent / plaintiff No.1 by cheques bearing Nos.22135 dated 05.02.2018, 22134 dated 15.02.2018 and 22142 dated 23.04.2018 drawn on IDBI Bank, Ring Road, Bengaluru. The petitioner had purportedly issued the three cheques without mentioning the amount and the name of the person. However, the respondent presented the cheques by entering her name as the payee and an amount of Rs.10,00,000/- was mentioned in the two cheques bearing Nos.22135/222135 and 22134/222134.

¶23

4 - NC: 2023:KHC:45481 WP No. 21894 of 2019

¶24

However, she entered the amount as Rs.30,00,000/- in the cheque bearing No.22142/222142. All these cheques were dishonoured due to ‘insufficient funds’ when they were presented for encashment which was followed by a notice of demand issued by the respondent on 02.07.2018. It is stated that thereafter the petitioner issued a reply on 08.08.2018 informing the respondent that a sum of Rs.30,00,000/- was transferred to the account of the respondent through Real-Time Gross Settlement (R TGS) on the dates mentioned in the said reply and that there was no subsisting liability. Nonetheless, the respondent initiated proceedings against the petitioner before the Trial Court which took cognizance of the offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I. Act against the petitioner herein.

¶25

The learned counsel further submitted that a perusal of the compromise entered into amongst the petitioner herein and the respondent herein and others in O.S. No.2238/2008 discloses that three cheques bearing

¶26

5 - NC: 2023:KHC:45481 WP No. 21894 of 2019

¶27

Nos.22135, 22134 and 22142 for a sum of Rs.10,00,000/each was handed over to the respondent but the said cheques have been manipulated by the respondent to seem as if the first two cheques were drawn for Rs.10,00,000/- each and the last cheque was drawn for Rs.30,00,000/-. He submits that the petitioner has transferred the sum of Rs.30,00,000/- to the account of the respondent by RTGS and therefore, an offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act is not made out. Nonetheless, a prosecution is launched against the petitioner.

¶28

Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent did not dispute the fact that the cheques in question were drawn for a sum of Rs.30,00,000/- as mentioned in the compromise. He also did not dispute the fact that the sum of Rs.30,00,000/- was mentioned in the cheque bearing No.222142 though it was understood between the parties that it was to be for a sum of Rs.10,00,000/-. He also did not dispute the fact that the respondent had received Rs.10,00,000/- on 19.03.2018,

¶29

¶30

NC: 2023:KHC:45481 WP No. 21894 of 2019

¶31

Rs.5,00,000/on 05.05.2018, Rs.5,00,000/on 21.05.2018 and Rs.10,00,000/- on 30.06.2018 through RTGS from the petitioner.

¶32

The prosecution of the petitioner for an offence

¶33

under Section 138 of the N.I. Act was concerning the dishonour of a cheque bearing 222142 dated 25.04.2018 for a sum of Rs.30,00,000/- issued by the petitioner, which was presented by the respondent through her banker on 13.06.2018, due to insufficient funds on 14.06.2018. The compromise in O.S. No.2238/2008 was accepted on 07.02.2018. Later, the petitioner had paid up Rs.10,00,000/on 19.03.2018, Rs.5,00,000/on 05.05.2018, Rs.5,00,000/on 21.05.2018 and

¶34

Rs.10,00,000/- on 30.06.2018 through RTGS to the respondent. Therefore, it appears that the petitioner had paid up a sum of Rs.30,00,000/- as was agreed under the compromise in O.S. No.2238/2008. The respondent therefore could not have initiated prosecution of the petitioner as there was no liability that was due. It is

¶35

7 - NC: 2023:KHC:45481 WP No. 21894 of 2019

¶36

therefore evident that the claim of the respondent was only for a sum of Rs.30,00,000/- and nothing more. As the petitioner had paid up the entire amount, the prosecution of the petitioner for an offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act was an abuse of the process of law and hence, cannot be allowed to continue.

¶37

Hence, this petition is allowed. The prosecution of the petitioner in C.C. No.58048/2018 for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, presently pending trial before the XXXIV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Mayohall, Bengaluru, is quashed.

¶38

Sd/JUDGE

¶39

sma

¶40

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 65

Smt. Rajitha Govardhan v. Smt. Geetha Madhusudhan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Rajitha Govardhan v. Smt. Geetha Madhusudhan

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

S Balaji Vs the State of Karnataka by

D Mahammad Vs State of Karnataka by

K. H. Umashankar Vs Smt. R. Chandrakala

K Umadevi Vs State of Karnataka

Anil Kumar Vs State of Karnataka

The Commissioner, Vs Gangamma