Dismissed

Anthariksha v. Vs M. Arjun Raj

Karnataka HC10 Jan 2024CRL.P/1905/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Karnataka High Court rejected an amendment to the Criminal Procedure Code petition filed to quash proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Single-judge observed that criminal proceedings cannot be quashed based on factual disputes regarding debt repayment and cheque misuse without a full trial. The court held the petition was devoid of merits.

What did the court decide?

The quashing petition was dismissed and the earlier interim stay order was vacated.

Anthariksha v Vs M. Arjun Raj — Cheque Dishonour | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:1263 CRL.P No. 1905 of 2023

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 10^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.NATARAJAN CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 1905 OF 2023

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

ANTHARIKSHA V S/O VASUKI ACHARYA, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, R/O NO.20A/37, BMP 54, 3^RD 'A' MAIN ROAD, OPP. BHOOMIKA PARADISE, BRUNDAVANA LAYOUT, PADMANABHANAGARA, BENGALURU - 560 061.

¶8

…PETITIONER (BY SRI. K. SREEDHAR, ADVOCATE) AND:

¶9

Digitally signed by VEDAVATHI A K Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶10

M ARJUN RAJ S/O K. MUNIRAJU, AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS, NO.7/1, 2^ND BLOCK, OPP KEB QUARTERS, THYAGARAJANAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 070.

¶11

…RESPONDENT (BY SRI. B.RAJE GOWDA, AVOCATE FOR R2)

¶12

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO a) QUASH THE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.8267/2021 ON THE FILE OF XXII ADDITIONAL AND A.C.M.M., BENGALURU (SCCH-8) AS THE DISPUTE BETWEEN PETITIONER AND RESPONDENT IS CIVIL IN NATURE AND NO OFFENCES ARE INVOLVED IN THE CASE.

¶13

¶14

NC: 2024:KHC:1263 CRL.P No. 1905 of 2023

¶15

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

¶16

ORDER

¶17

This petition is filed by the petitioner/accused under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., for quashing the criminal proceedings in CC.No.8267/2021 on the file of XXII Additional and ACMM, Bengaluru, on the complaint filed by the respondent, for the offence punishable under Section 138 of NI Act.

¶18

Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent.

¶19

The case of the petitioner is that the respondent filed complaint under Section 138 of NI Act, for having dishonour of cheque issued by the petitioner for Rs.32 lakhs and a legal notice has been issued. A reply was issued by the petitioner and complaint came to be filed. The Trial Court took the cognizance and issued summons. Accordingly, the petitioner appeared before the Magistrate and filed application under Section 239 of Cr.P.C., for

¶20

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:1263 CRL.P No. 1905 of 2023

¶21

discharge, which came to be rejected. Accordingly the petitioner is before this court.

¶22

Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that he has borrowed the loan from the respondent long back for the purpose of production of the Cinema and subsequently entire amount has been repaid by the petitioner on 17.7.2019 to the respondent and his friends. An agreement was also entered into between the parties, where Rs.19,50,000/- has been issued by the respondent in the presence of respondent one Mohan Kumar. There is a recital to return the blank document and blank cheque by the friend lender. Subsequently, after the payment, these cheques have been misused by the Mohan Kumar through this petitioner and filed the case for the offence under Section 138 of NI Act. The petitioner suitably replied in the reply notice sent with respect to the 138 NI Act. Subsequently, the petitioner also filed the suit against the respondent for return of the original documents. The suit is under consideration, evidence of

¶23

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:1263 CRL.P No. 1905 of 2023

¶24

the complainant is over. The case is posted for defense evidence. Therefore, it is contended there is no legally liable debt payable to the petitioner, hence prayed for quashing the criminal proceedings.

¶25

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent objected the same and contended the documents produced by the petitioner has nothing to do with the respondent, where the petitioner borrowed loan of Rs.32 lakhs from the respondent for the purpose of film shoot and previously he was made as co-producer. Subsequently, removed his name and for discharging the loan, he has issued a cheque which was dishonored. Therefore, the complaint came to be filed. Now the case is posted for evidence. At this stage, if any default, it can be urged before the Trial Court. Hence, prayed for dismissing the petition.

¶26

Having heard the arguments, perused the records. The contention of the respondent is that he has lent loan of Rs.32 lakhs to the petitioner for film

¶27

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:1263 CRL.P No. 1905 of 2023

¶28

production. Though he was also taken as a co-producer subsequently his name was deleted from the production list and due to dispute the petitioner agreed to repay Rs.32 lakhs. Hence, he issued the cheque for discharging the liability which came to be dishonoured. The contention of the petitioner is that the petitioner borrowed loan from

¶29

one Mohan Kumar, he is also friend of the present petitioner and present respondent Arjun Raj and Abhishek. However, subsequently repaid Rs.19,50,000/- as on 17.7.2019, but the cheque received by the Mohan Kumar was not returned apart from the blank e-stamp paper obtained and signed from the petitioner. Therefore, it is contended that the said blank cheque was misused by the Mohan Kumar through this respondent and filed the complaint. Ofcourse he has given reply to the legal notice and they also filed civil suit for return of the documents against the respondent However, if at all any defense taken by him in the legal notice, he has to take same defense before the court, while cross examining the PW1, complainant and also he can lead the offence in the

¶30

¶31

NC: 2024:KHC:1263 CRL.P No. 1905 of 2023

¶32

evidence and he can succeed in the case. Otherwise, the court cannot conduct a mini trial in the High court for the purpose of considering the defense and quashing the criminal proceedings, which is impermissible under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. Therefore, I am of the view, the petition is devoid of merits and liable to be dismissed.

¶33

Accordingly, the petition is dismissed . The interim

¶34

stay order granted earlier, is hereby vacated.

¶35

Sd/JUDGE

¶36

AKV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 43 CT:SK

Anthariksha v. Vs M. Arjun Raj

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anthariksha v. Vs M. Arjun Raj

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

Depak Prasad Vs State of Karnataka

Sri. Srihari Acharya. N Vs Sri. Vijaya Savanur. S. K.

Sri K Satish Kumar Krishnappa Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Amit Kumar Nepak Vs State of Karnataka

Shri Rafiqahmad Vs the State of Karnataka

Mr Varghese Mathew Vs State of Karnataka