High CourtsSingle Bench(2008) 03 KAR CK 0008

Phillip D'' Souza vs The State of Karnataka and Another

Karnataka High Court · Decided on 14 March 2008 · Citation: (2008) 4 KCCR 2939

HON’BLE JUDGES
K. Bhakthavatsala, J
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
Criminal Petition No. 2017 of 2007

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

6 paragraphs · 350 words

K. Bhakthavatsala, J.—The petitioner/accused in Crime No. 94/2007, Thirthahalli Police Station, Shimoga for the offence u/s 420 of IPC, Sections 38 and 39 of Karnataka Money Lenders Act, 1961 and Section 4of Karnataka Prohibition of Exorbitant Interest Act, is before this Court praying for quashing the F.I.R.

2.

Heard arguments for final disposal.

3.

Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that as against the Respondent No. 2/complainant, the petitioner filed a private complaint in C.C. No. 5716/2006 on the file of XVI Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore, for the offence u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 on the ground that the cheque issued by the Respondent No. 2 for a sum of Rs. 80,000/- was dishonoured. The Respondent No. 2 faced trial in the said case and the learned Magistrate, by his Judgment dated 24.01.2007, convicted the accused and sentenced the accused to pay fine of Rs. 85,000/-, in default in payment of fine, the accused shall undergo imprisonment for a period of three months. As against the order of conviction and sentence, the accused preferred appeal in Criminal Appeal No. 208/2007 on the file of Sessions Judge at Bangalore. Further, the present complaint came to be lodged on 31.03.2007 by him after the Respondent No. 2 was convicted for the offence u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

4.

It is pertinent to mention that the cheque in question is dated 06.06.2005. Insofar as the cheque in question, a complaint filed against the Respondent No. 2 herein for the offence u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Under such circumstances, the Respondent No. 2/complainant lodging a complaint after he suffered a Judgment of conviction and sentence, is abuse of process of law. It can be said that the Respondent No. 2/complainant has lodged a false and frivolous complaint as against the present petitioner with an intention to harass him.

5.

In view of the above, the petitioner is entitled to succeed in this petition.

6.

In the result, the petition is allowed and the F.I.R in Crime No. 94/2007 of Thirthahalli Police Station at Shimoga, is quashed.