N R NAGARAJ Vs. D KRISHNAMURTHY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the learned Counsel for the petitioner.

(2.) THE petitioner was the accused in proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. It transpires that the petitioner was the landlord in respect of certain premises which was let out to the respondent. Under the terms of the lease, an amount of Rs.3,50,000/- was paid as security deposit which was refundable without interest. However, during the currency of the lease, the premises was handed over by the respondent to a nationalised bank and it is the contention of the petitioner that the premises was willfully handed over to a nationalised bank which had instituted proceedings under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (Hereinafter referred to as the 'SARFAESI Act' for brevity). Further, it is the case of the petitioner that the respondent had caused serious damage to the leased premises. Therefore, the cheque which was issued, by the petitioner for a sum of Rs.3,50,000/- which was equivalent to the amount of deposit that he was received in order to enable the respondent to recover the same at the appropriate point of time was sought to be encashed and the same having been presented to the banker of the petitioner, the petitioner had appropriately instructed his banker not to honour the cheque on account of the dispute as to the amount that was recoverable by the respondent. It is in this background that the cheque was dishonoured and accordingly proceedings were initiated by the respondent and the court below having held that the offences punishable under Section 138 of the Act was established has sentenced the petitioner to pay fine of Rs.4,00,000/- out of which, a sum of Rs.3,75,000/- was to be paid to the respondent. This having been carried in appeal the same has been confirmed. It is that which is under challenge in the present petition.

(3.) THE learned Counsel for the respondent on the other hand, would justify the judgments of the court below and would submit that it is incorrect to state that the premises had been willfully handed over to the bank which had instituted the proceedings under the SARFAESI Act . On the other hand, the respondent was removed from the premises and it was not a willful act on the part of the respondent. Insofar as the alleged damages caused to the premises is concerned is again seriously disputed. In any event, the petitioner ought to file civil proceedings for recovery of any amounts that may be due from the respondents and the dishonour of the cheque which was the subject matter of the proceedings before the courts below was an independent cause of action and could not be relatable to the dispute as regards the damages which the petitioner seeks to claim and therefore, would submit that the present petition is not maintainable.