RENUKAYYA SOMASHEKARAYYA SHYASTHRI Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is filed by the petitioners seeking quashing of the proceedings initiated against them in C.C. No.614/2021 on the file of the Court of Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Hungund for offences punishable under Ss. 506, 34, 418 , 420, 465, 504 and 468 of IPC.

(2.) Petitioners are accused Nos.1, 2 and 4 respectively. Complaint is lodged by respondent No.2 against the president, Secretary and two other employees of the Perfect Pattan Pattina Sahakari Sangh, Ilkal. Sum and substance of the complaint averments are that, between 5/7/2007 and 14/3/2018 the accused persons were working as the Secretary, Clerk and President of the said society. Till 2007 a sum of Rs.9,90,000.00 was deposited by the wife and children of the complainant in the said society and as on 6/3/2014 including interest they were entitled for a sum of Rs.21,46,495.00. When the complainant approached the bank for withdrawal of the amount, the accused persons stating that they have already deposited a sum of Rs.20,00,000.00 took a withdrawal slip from the complainant and gave a cheque for the said amount drawn on ING bank. However, the said amount was not deposited in the said bank and when the complainant once again approached the accused persons, they took back the cheque, but did not return the withdrawal slip. Thereafter mentioning the date on the withdrawal slip as 8/9/2016 transmitted the entire Rs.20,00,000.00 to their account. It is alleged that the accused by correcting the date mentioned in the withdrawal slip as 8/9/2016 and putting the cash paid seal on the said slip created a forged document and cheated the complainant without returning the amount. It is also alleged that when the complainant went to the house of petitioner No.1 on 10/3/2018, requesting to return the amount, he was manhandled and abused and again on 12/3/2018, when he went to the bank, petitioner No.2, working as a Clerk in the said bank also manhandled, threatened and assaulted him etc.

(3.) The learned counsel for petitioner has contended that the complaint itself is not maintainable since the complainant did not have any account in the bank. On the other hand, the account belong to his wife and children. It is his further contention that the offence was committed on 6/3/2014 and after an inordinate delay the complaint was lodged. He contends that the allegations are nothing but a concocted story just to victimize the petitioners and to harass them. He submits that the entire allegations are false and the petitioners cannot be held liable and the entire proceedings against them is an abuse of process of the Court.