Allowed

M Janardhana v. Shobha S

Karnataka HC6 Mar 2024CRL.A/1075/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the criminal appeal against acquittal in a cheque bounce case. The court set aside the lower court order, remanded the matter for the complainant to cross-examine the accused, specifically addressing her defence that the cheque was security for a chit fund.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order of acquittal is set aside, and the case is remanded to the trial court to cross-examine the accused.

M Janardhana Vs Shobha S — Cheque Dishonour | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

CRL.A No. 1075 of 2022 NC: 2024:KHC:9284

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 6^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE J.M.KHAZI CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1075 OF 2022

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

M JANARDHANA S/O MALLA REDDY AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS R/AT THALAGHATTAPURA VILLAGE KANAKAPURA MAIN ROAD BENGALURU - 560 062

¶9

…APPELLANT

¶10

(BY SRI. RANJAN KUMAR K, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by REKHA R Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶13

SHOBHA S W/O NAGAREDDY AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS RESIDING AT ANJANAPURA VILLAGE AND POST, UTTARAHALLI HOBLI BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK BENGALURU - 560 062

¶14

…RESPONDENT

¶15

(BY SRI. SANTOSH S NAGARALE, ADVOCATE)

¶16

THIS CRL.A IS FILED UNDER SECTION 378(4) OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO a) SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT IN C.C.NO.7014/2018 DATED 02.12.2021 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, ACQUITTING THE ACCUSED OF THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 138 OF THE N.I.ACT; b) GRANT SUCH OTHER RELIEF AS THIS HON'BLE COURT DEEMS FIT TO GRANT IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE.

¶17

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

¶18

¶19

CRL.A No. 1075 of 2022 NC: 2024:KHC:9284

¶20

JUDGMENT

¶21

Being aggrieved by the dismissal of the complaint

¶22

filed by him under Section 200 Cr.P.C against the respondent/accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument (for short "N.I. Act"), appellant who is complainant has filed this appeal under Section 378(4) of Cr.P.C.

¶23

For the sake of convenience the parties are

¶24

referred to by their rank before the trial Court.

¶25

It is the case of the complainant that in the month of October 2016, accused approached the complainant for hand loan of Rs.4,00,000/- on the ground that there is shortage of funds to purchase a site and she would repay the same within one year. Accordingly, complainant extended the hand loan in a sum of Rs.4,00,000/-. After completion of one year, when complainant approached the accused with a request for repayment, she issued a cheque dated 30.11.2017. However, when presented for realization, it was dishonoured for want sufficient funds. After issuing legal

¶26

¶27

CRL.A No. 1075 of 2022 NC: 2024:KHC:9284

¶28

notice and on failure of accused to pay the amount due, complaint is filed. Though complainant has examined himself as PW-1 and relied upon Ex.P1 to 4 to prove his case, only on the ground that he has failed to crossexamine the accused who is examined as DW-1, the trial Court has dismissed the complaint and acquitted the accused and hence the appeal.

¶29

After due service of notice, respondent/accused

¶30

has appeared.

¶31

During the course of arguments, learned counsel for complainant submitted that since the trial

¶32

Court has acquitted the accused mainly on the ground that her evidence is not contraverted by the complainant, by cross-examining her, it is necessary to remand the case to enable the complainant to cross-examine the accused and thereafter to decide the matter.

¶33

Heard arguments and perused the record.

¶34

Thus, it is the definite case of the complainant

¶35

that accused borrowed a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- and issued

¶36

¶37

CRL.A No. 1075 of 2022 NC: 2024:KHC:9284

¶38

the cheque towards repayment of the same which came to

¶39

be dishonoured on the ground of insufficient funds. At the

¶40

trial the accused has taken up a defence that she has issued the subject cheque as a security for chit business

¶41

and it is misused by the complainant. However, the complainant has failed to cross-examine accused and while dismissing the complaint the trial Court has specifically made an observation that it is also a ground for acquitting the accused. In the above facts and circumstances, it has become necessary to remand the case to enable the complainant to cross-examine the accused. No prejudice would be caused to the accused. However, for having caused inconvenience to the accused to engage the services of counsel, it is necessary to impose some cost, which is quantified at Rs.5,000/- and accordingly, the following:

¶42

ORDER

¶43

(i) Appeal is allowed, subject to cost of Rs.5,000/to the accused before the trial Court.

¶44

¶45

CRL.A No. 1075 of 2022 NC: 2024:KHC:9284

¶46

(ii) The impugned order dated 02.12.2021 passed in C.C.No.7014/2018 on the file of II Addl.Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru is set aside.

¶47

(ii) The complainant/appellant and

¶48

respondent/accused are directed to appear before the trial Court on 21.03.2024 without waiting for further notice from the trial Court.

¶49

(iii) The trial Court is directed to decide the case in accordance with law, after providing reasonable opportunity to both parties.

¶50

Sd/JUDGE

¶51

RR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 40

M Janardhana v. Shobha S

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M Janardhana v. Shobha S

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

M/S. Om Sai Finance and Enterprises (Regd) Vs Mr. Kumara Acharya

H. M. Nagaraju Vs N. Sonne Gowda

L Shashidhar Vs K R Raju

The Agricultural Produce Market Committee Vs B. S. Shashidhara

Padamchand Vs Pratap

Yogesh Govind Naik Vs the State of Karnataka