Dr. Siddabasappa vs G. Muiyappa

B.V. Pinto, J.—This petition is filed seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C. No. 919/2011 arising out of private complaint No. 37/2011, pending on the file of Addl. JMFC-III Court at Raichur, which is filed for an offence u/s 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act against the petitioner.

It is the case of the respondent-complainant that the petitioner has issued a cheque for Rs. 11,00,000/- and the cheque when presented for payment has been dishonored for ''insufficiency of funds''. Thereafter a notice u/s 138 of N.I. Act was issued to the petitioner by the counsel for the respondent and after the lapse of statutory period he has filed the private complaint before the Court seeking an action u/s 138 of N.I. Act.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the complainant has not given the correct name of father of the petitioner and that he has filed an amended complaint before the trial Court. There is no provision for filing the amended complaint and therefore the said act of the respondent is clear abuse of process of Court. He also submits that the petitioner has not entered into any transaction with the respondent and the complaint is also silent regarding the same. He has also disputed the signature on the cheque as stated by the Manager of the Syndicate Bank of Gulbarga Branch. Hence, he submits that there is no cause of action to the complainant and therefore the proceedings would lead to a sheer waste of time of the Court. Hence, he submits that the proceedings may be quashed.

Learned counsel for the respondent submits that all the ingredients of offence u/s 138 of N.I. Act have been complied by the complainant and that it is averred in the complaint that for re-payment of loan availed by the petitioner from the, complainant, cheque has been drawn by the petitioner. He also submits that so far as the identity of petitioner is concerned, he is required to prove the case before the trial Court during evidence. He also submits that the dispute in signature is a matter of fact, which has to be decided by the trial Court by sending the same to an expert. Hence, he submits that this petition may be dismissed.

On a careful consideration of the materials on record, it is seen that the facts urged by Sri Prakash Yeli, learned counsel for the petitioner are to be agitated before the trial Court during trial. However, there is no scope for quashing the proceedings since the ingredients of the offence u/s 138 of N.I. Act are made out. Hence, this petition is liable to be dismissed. Liberty is reserved to the petitioner to urge all the grounds raised by him in this petition at the time of trial.

Accordingly, petition is dismissed.