AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
B.V. Pinto
This petition is filed seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.11756/2010 on the file of XIII Addl. CMM at Bangalore.
The respondent herein filed a complaint before the trial Court u/s 200 of Cr.P.C, alleging that the petitioner has issued a cheque for. Rs. 15 lakhs bearing No.939303 drawn on State Bank of India dated 20.06.2009 and that the accused has paid a sum of Rs. 25,000/- as advance/Interim payment and after the sanction of plan the accused has paid a sum of Rs. 5 lakhs out of Rs. 20 lakhs which is the total due from the accused to the Complainant. The Complainant has further issued a notice to the accused u/s 138 of the N.I.Act, 1881 calling upon the complainant to pay the amount of Rs. 14,75,000/-. The accused has not paid the cheque amount, but has issued a reply to the Complainant. Since the amount demanded in the notice is not paid, the complaint came to be filed. The specific case of the complainant is that the accused is due to him a sum of Rs. 14,75,000/-.
Heard Sri K.P.S. Nair, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri M.L. Balaram, party-in-person/Respondent.
It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the cheque amount being Rs. 15 lakhs and the due according to the Complainant being Rs. 14,75,000/-there is no strict compliance of Section 138 of the N.I.Act and therefore the complaint is liable to be quashed. He has relied on the rulings
(i) AIR 2010 (1) Kar R. 304 in the case of Venkatesh Bhat, A. v. Rohidas Shenoy;
(ii) III (2009) BC 417 in the case of State of Maharashtra v. Kalpak Bhaskar Gadhave
(iii) AIR 2007 (DOC) 132 (Ker.) in the case of Supply House v. Ullas & Another.
Respondent/party-in-person submits that since the petitioner has paid a sum of Rs. 25,000/-, a demand was made for Rs. 14,75,000/- and that a notice of demand was also made for Rs. 14,75,000/- even in the prayer before the Court, he has asked for compensation of Rs. 14,75,000/-. Since the complainant had paid Rs. 25,000/- prior to issuing of notice, apart from Rs. 5 lakhs which is paid towards the total liability of Rs. 20 lakhs.
I have gone though the Judgment cited by the learned Counsel for the petitioner in the case of State of Maharashtra v. Kalpak Bhaskar Gadhave. It is seen that the Complainant has presented a cheque for Rs. 2,89,096/- mentioning that the said amount is due and the notice for the said amount was issued. During recording of evidence, the amount due from the accused to the Complainant was disclosed as Rs. 63,292/-. Under those circumstances, the High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the Complainant. In the case of Venkatesh Bhat, A. v. Rohidas Shenoy reported in AIR 2010 Kar. 304, the matter arose out of a judgment. Both the rulings are not applicable to the facts of this case. It is seen that the Complainant has come with clean hands to the Court without suppressing the material. There is no error or illegality in presenting the cheque for the amount which is due and the trial court is not restrained from passing the judgment on the basis of the said cheque. In view of the fact that the cheque is dated 20.6.2009, the trial Court is directed to dispose of the case within six months from today.
The observations made in this order are only for the purpose of disposal of this petition and the petitioner is at liberty to take all the contentions before the trial Court.
In view of the same, Misc.Crl.3573/2011 for stay is disposed of as infructuous.