V. NARAYANA MURTHY, S/O. VENDATASWAMAPPE AND N. RUKMANI MRTHY, W/O. V. NARAYANA MURTHY Vs. M/S. MABA CORPORATE SERVICE PVT. LTD., REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER AND P.A. HOLDER, H. PUTTASAME GOWDE, MAJOR, NO. 185/1, J.C. COMPLEX ANNEXE, SIRUR PARK R

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition is disposed of finally after hearing learned Counsel for the parties.

(2.) PETITIONER were the accused in the trial court in respect of a complaint filed by the Respondent under Section 138 of N.I. Act. The case of Respondent complainant was that the Petitioners being the husband and wife had approached the complainant for financial assistance and barrowed loans on various dates and in respect of two such loan transactions, the accused had issued two cheques, one for Rs. 20 lakhs and another for Rs. 21,72,665/ - drawn on ING Vysya Bank Ltd., Jayanegar Branch, Bangalore, and the said cheques on being presented were returned with an endorsement 'insufficient funds'. Thereafter, after issuing notice to the accused, the Respondent approached the trial curt by way of this complaint under Section 200 of Code of Criminal Procedure.

(3.) LEARNED Counsel Sri. S.K. Venkata Reddy for the Petitioners submitted that there has been number of transaction between the parties, in as much as, various amounts were taken by the Petitioners on various dates and the Petitioners have also made payment to the Respondent both by way of cheques as well as cash and referring to the application i.e., filled under Section 482 R/w 397 R/w 401 of Code of Criminal Procedure submission made is that, in all the Petitioners have paid Rs. 46,37,360/ - through various cheques mentioned at Para 5.1 of the application and cash payment was also made as mentioned in Para 5.2 of the application amounting to Rs. 1,50,00,000/ -. Therefore, it is contended that the Petitioners have made all the payments, but the cheques, which are the basis for the present complaint, were blanc cheques and misused by the Respondent. More over, learned Counsel for the Petitioners in the trail court did not present the documents that were sought to be produced by the Petitioners and as such, the matter be remanded to the trial court for fresh consideration. That apart, it is submitted that there are three more cases pending in the trial court between the very same parties and some of them are at the stage of evidence and a suit is also filed by the Respondent in O.S. No. 6783/07 for recovery of money. It is therefore contended that when the Respondent does not say in the present complaint anything about the payments made by the Petitioners, the trial court as well as the lower appellate court could not have allowed the complaint of the Respondent and therefore, in the interest of justice, the matter be remanded.