Prakash M Vs Smt Munirathnamma

PRAKASH M. S/O MUNI HANUMAIAH AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.534 MATHRUSHREE NILAYA OPPOSITE TO SHREERAMA TEMPLE NEAR TO PILEKAMMA TEMPLE TALAGHATTAPURA VILLAGE UTTARAHALLI HOBLI KANAKAPURA MAIN ROAD BENGALURU-560 109.

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. VINAY S., ADVOCATE)

¶12

Digitally signed by GEETHA P G Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

AND:

¶14

SMT. MUNIRATHNAMMA D/O LATE LINGAPPA W/O MUNIRAJU AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS R/AT NO.99, AGARA VILLAGE THATHAGUNI POST KANAKAPURA ROAD BENGALURU-560 082.

¶15

…RESPONDENT

¶16

(BY SRI. KEERTI PRASAD D.C., ADVOCATE)

¶17

2 -

¶18

NC: 2025:KHC:44553 CRL.P No. 344 of 2023

¶19

HC-KAR

¶20

THIS CRL.P. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO QUASH THE CRIMINAL CASE REGISTERED AGAINST THE PETITIONER IN C.C.NO.940/2022 ON THE FILE OF II ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, BENGALURU BASED ON THE COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 138 OF NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS ACT, 1881 AGAINST THE PETITIONERS VIDE ANNEXURE-A.

¶21

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THROUGH PHYSICAL HEARING/VIDEO CONFERENCING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶22

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN

¶23

ORAL ORDER

¶24

The criminal petition is filed with the following prayers:

¶25

"i) Quash the criminal case registered against the Petitioner in CRIMINAL CASE NO.940/2022 on the file of II Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bengaluru Rural District at Bengaluru based on the complaint under section 138 of Negotiable instruments act, 1881 against the petitioners vide ANNEXURE A;

¶26

ii) Grant such other relief/s which deems fit to the facts and circumstance of the case."

¶27

On the allegations that the respondent/complainant

¶28

is the owner of certain immovable property and that the

¶29

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:44553 CRL.P No. 344 of 2023

¶30

HC-KAR

¶31

petitioner herein agreed to purchase the same for a valuable consideration and that a sale agreement was executed in this regard and that towards part sale consideration, cheques have been issued in favour of the respondent and the same have been dishonoured for insufficiency of funds, the respondent preferred PCR No.852/2021, which has culminated into C.C.No.940/2022 on the file of II Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bengaluru Rural District.

¶32

The petitioner admits that there has been a sale agreement and execution of a General Power of Attorney (GPA) in his favour by respondent/complainant. However, he submits that the cheques have been issued as per the terms of the sale agreement, but subsequently, the terms of the sale agreement have been altered and a fresh sale agreement has been entered into and that the respondent is not entitled to the amounts mentioned in the said cheques. It is submitted that inspite of it, the respondent presented the said cheques and with the sole intention of making illegal gains at the cost of the petitioner, has preferred the present complaint before the Magistrate resulting in C.C.No.940/2022. It is specifically

¶33

4 -

¶34

NC: 2025:KHC:44553 CRL.P No. 344 of 2023

¶35

HC-KAR

¶36

contended that there is no legally dischargeable debt payable by the petitioner to the respondent. On the said grounds, it is prayed that the petition be allowed.

¶37

Per contra , the respondent disputes the same. He submits that the cheques have been issued towards a legally dischargeable debt and prays for dismissal of the petition. He also submits that there is an original suit pending between the parties in this regard.

¶38

The averments made in the petition and the arguments submitted by both the parties reveal that the cheques have been issued by the petitioner in favour of the respondent. It is not in dispute. What is disputed is whether the respondent was entitled to the amounts mentioned in the cheques and whether there exist any legally dischargeable debt payable by petitioner to the respondent and whether the cheques were issued to pay the said legally dischargeable debt. These questions can be decided by the trial Court in the trial. As the dispute involves disputed question of facts, the same cannot be decided by this Court in exercise of its powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.

¶39