LAWS(KAR)-2015-3-65

A.A. GANAPATHY Vs. D.M. GANESH

Decided On March 06, 2015
A.A. Ganapathy Appellant
V/S
D.M. Ganesh Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RESPONDENT is the complainant and the petitioner is accused No. 3 in C.C. No. 315/2014, on the file of Civil Judge and JMFC, Koppa. Said case was instituted against the petitioner and three others, alleging commission of an offence punishable under Section 138 r/w Section 141 of N.I. Act, 1881. Seeking quashing of the said case, insofar as it relates to the petitioner, this petition was filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

(2.) MR . Mutturaman, Joint Managing Director of M/s. Algeshwar Estates Limited, a company registered under the Companies Act, arraigned as accused No. 2, having issued cheque bearing No. 917656 dated 22.11.2013 for Rs. 30,00,000/ - drawn on Karnataka Bank Limited, Jayapura Branch and the cheque, when presented having been returned by the Bank with endorsement "funds insufficient", after issuance of legal notice, private complaint having been filed, cognizance was taken for the offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I. Act and was registered as C.C. No. 315/2014. Process having been issued to the petitioner, this petition was filed for the relief mentioned supra.

(3.) SRI Vishnu Bhat, learned advocate for the respondent, on the other hand submitted that in view of the proceedings in C.C. No. 550/2005, the cheque in question having been issued towards due discharge of the admitted liability and the petitioner being a party to C.C. No. 550/2005, was notified of the dishonour of the cheque and demand for payment made having not been complied, the complaint was filed. Learned counsel submitted that the petitioner being a group manager of the company - accused No. 1 and having taken active part in the dealings between the complainant and accused No. 1 which is an artificial person, the natural persons who acted on its behalf i.e., accused Nos. 2 to 4 being liable, were prosecuted for the offence punishable under Section 138 r/w Section 141 of the Act. He submitted that in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, no case exists at this stage, for interference under Section 482 Cr.P.C.