Dismissed

Sri H G Rajanna v. Sri a S Shivanna

Karnataka HC16 Jan 2024CRL.P/269/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a criminal petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. filed by an accused to quash an order allowing the respondent to summon a bank manager for account statements. The court held it was not a fit case for interference as account statements were necessary to determine if the cheque was dishonoured due to insufficient funds or lost by the drawer.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed; I.A. No.1/2024 disposed of.

Sri H G Rajanna Vs Sri a S Shivanna — Cheque Dishonour | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:2053 CRL.P No. 269 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 16^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.NATARAJAN

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 269 OF 2024

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

Digitally signed by BHAVANI BAI G Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶9

SRI. H G RAJANNA S/O LATE GULAIAH, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, R/AT CHIKKAGOLARA HATTI, SHANESHWARA TEMPLE ROAD, LAKSHMIPURA POST, MAGADI MAIN ROAD, BANGALORE - 562 123 AND ALSO WORKING AT THYAGARAJ CO-OPERATIVE BANK, NO.61, SANISWARA TEMPLE ROAD, OPP: EMBASSY SCHOOL, MAHAGADI MAIN ROAD, CHIKKAGOLARAHALLI, DASANAPURA HOBLI, BANGALORE NORTH TALUK - 560 679. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. K.N. MAHABALESHWARA RAO, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

SRI. A S SHIVANNA S/O ANDANE GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, R/AT NO. 21, JANANI NILAYA, 13^TH CROSS, ANDRAHALLI MAIN ROAD, HEGGANAHALLI, BANGALORE - 560 091. …RESPONDENT (NOTICE TO RESPONDENT DISPENSED WITH)

¶12

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:2053 CRL.P No. 269 of 2024

¶13

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.PC PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 15.12.2023 IN C.C.NO.6947/2018, ON THE FILE OF THE XXII ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, BANGALORE CITY ALLOWING APPLICATION FILED BY THE RESPONDENT U/S 91 OF CR.P.C., AND CONSEQUENTLY DISMISS THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE RESPONDENT U/S 91 OF CR.P.C.

¶14

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

¶15

ORDER

¶16

Issuance of notice to respondent is hereby dispensed with.

¶17

This petition is filed by the petitioner-accused under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashing the impugned order dated 15.12.2023 for having allowed the application filed by the respondent under Section 91 of Cr.P.C.

¶18

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶19

Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the petitioner is facing trial before the Magistrate under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short 'N.I. Act') and the complaint filed by the respondent alleging that the cheque issued by the petitioner was dishonoured for the reason insufficient funds. The evidence of the and the petitioner as well as the respondent is already over. At this

¶20

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:2053 CRL.P No. 269 of 2024

¶21

stage, the complainant-respondent filed application under Section 91 of Cr.P.C. for summoning the Bank Manager to produce the statement of accounts of the petitioner pertaining from the years 2016 to 2021 which came to be allowed. Hence, the petitioner is before this Court.

¶22

Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the cheque was dishonoured for want of sufficient funds. The presumption is available under Section 139 of N.I. Act in favour of the complainant. Such being the case, the question of summoning the statement of accounts belongs to the petitioner from the Bank is not required and even otherwise, the cheque was dishonoured on 11.01.2018 and the cheque date was 10.01.2018, there is no necessary for summoning the statement of accounts from the years 2016 to 2021. Therefore, summoning those documents are not correct and not required at all to prove the case of the prosecution. But the Trial Court erred in allowing the application, hence, prayed for quashing the proceedings.

¶23

Having heard the arguments and on perusal of the

¶24

records, which reveals, of course, the contention of the

¶25

¶26

NC: 2024:KHC:2053 CRL.P No. 269 of 2024

¶27

petitioner that the presumption is available under Section 139 of N.I. Act in favour of the complainant. However, the accused taken the contention that the alleged cheque issued in favour of the respondent was misplaced or lost. The endorsement issued by the Banker for dishonouring the cheque was mentioned as "88 cheque reported lost / Insufficient balance". There are two options made by the Banker for dishonour of the cheque either it is a cheque dishonoured for only insufficient funds or cheque was reported lost by drawer of the cheque/account holder. Therefore, it is necessary for the complainant to summon the Banker and to produce document in proving this case. Whether the cheque was returned for insufficient funds or loosing the cheque by the drawer of the cheque. Therefore, the Trial Court rightly allowed the application. Though the learned counsel taken contention that the statement of accounts from 2016 to 2021 is not required, however, the defence taken by the accused and cross examination of the complainant and evidence of the petitioner is not produced before this Court to know what is the defence taken by him in the trial. Such being the case, without the said document, this Court cannot give any findings on the accounts required from 2016 to 2021.

¶28

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:2053 CRL.P No. 269 of 2024

¶29

Therefore, I am of the view, it is not a fit case for interference by this Court. Hence, the petition is devoid of merits and liable to be dismissed.

¶30

Accordingly, the petition is dismissed .

¶31

In view of disposal of the main petition, pending

¶32

I.A.No.1/2024 does not survive for consideration and the same

¶33

is disposed of.

¶34

Sd/JUDGE

¶35

GBB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 42 CT:SK

Sri H G Rajanna v. Sri a S Shivanna

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri H G Rajanna v. Sri a S Shivanna

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

Smt Hemamala N Vs State of Karnataka

Gangaraju @ Raju Vs State of Karnataka

Gopal H T Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Kishore Vs Sri M Krishnappa

Dr Mahesh Singh Vs the State of Karnataka

Ravi Kumar v P @ Ravi Vs State by