Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 749 (KAR)

Amit Rathore v. Ms. Kiranashree Electricals

2022-06-16

HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

body2022
ORDER 1. Respondent had filed a private complaint under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. alleging that the accused quote a sum of Rs.83,90,511/- towards contract work and towards part payment of the said amount, a cheque for a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- was issued by the accused in favour of the complainant. It is further alleged that the said cheque when presented with his banker, was returned for technical reasons and thereafter on the assurance given by the accused that the cheque would be cleared, the complainant represented the cheque with his banker and thereafter the cheque was returned with an endorsement "stop payment". 2. Learned Magistrate after recording the sworn statement of the complainant took cognizance of the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and issued summons to the petitioner. Taking exception of the same, this petition is filed. 3. Sri.M.C.Nanaiah, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Smt.Rachita Nanaiah.H., learned counsel for the petitioner submits that immediately after the cheque was returned for technical reason, the accused has remitted the cheque amount through RTGS to the bank account of the complainant and hence, he submits that in the absence of any legally recoverable debt, the complaint filed by the complainant is not maintainable. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent-complainant submits that the amount which was transferred to the account of the complainant through RTGS was towards the part payment of the amount which was due to the complainant and the cheque returned for technical reason was re-presented towards payment of balance amount due to the complainant. Hence, he submits that the cheque which was issued in favour of the complainant was towards legally recoverable debt and the learned Magistrate has rightly taken cognizance. 5. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. 6. Admiteddly, the cheque in question when presented for realization was returned for technical reason. It is also admitted that on the very same date, the accused transferred a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- to the account of the complainant through RTGS. The complainant has not placed any material before the learned Magistrate to substantiate his claim that an amount of Rs.83,90,511/- was due for payment towards service rendered in favour of the accused. There is no material placed that the cheque was represented towards recovery of balance amount payable by the accused in favour of the complainant. The complainant has not placed any material before the learned Magistrate to substantiate his claim that an amount of Rs.83,90,511/- was due for payment towards service rendered in favour of the accused. There is no material placed that the cheque was represented towards recovery of balance amount payable by the accused in favour of the complainant. In the absence of any material that the cheque was re-presented towards legally recoverable debt, the learned Magistrate has committed an error in taking cognizance of the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. 7. In view of the preceding analysis, I am of the considered view that the continuation of the impugned criminal proceedings against the petitioner accused would be a futile exercise and so as to secure the ends of justice, it would be appropriate to quash the impugned proceedings. Accordingly, I pass the following: ORDER i. Criminal petition is allowed. ii. The impugned proceedings in C.C.No.12745/2019 pending on the file of XX Addl. CMM Court, Bengaluru is quashed. It is made clear that any observation made in this order shall not come in way of parties in taking any appropriate steps for recovering the alleged amount due from the accused in accordance with law.