SWAROOP MURGOD Vs. KAVIL K N

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Respondent herein filed a complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C. read with Sections 138 and 142 of N.I.Act contending interalia that petitioner accused had entered into an agreement (MOU) with the complainant and Mr.Sunil Kumar under which accused as producer of teleserial 'Smt.Bhagyalakshmi' had agreed to give sub-contract to the respondent and his partner thereby meaning that complainant would bear all the expenses of pre-production, production and post-production, daily expenditure, daily conveyance, etc. and complainant should pay Rs.15,000/- per episode for the first 50 episodes and profit sharing would be decided on mutual discussion for subsequent episodes. It is further alleged in the complaint that as per the agreement, complainant met all the expenses of production of said teleserial and it was telecasted in 149 episodes in Suvarna Channel from 12.01.2015 and said Channel credited Rs.75,000/- per episode to the current Bank Account of accused which amount paid by the Suvarna Channel should have been paid by the accused to the complainant and so also, incentives paid by said Channel should have been shared between complainant and accused. Complainant is said to have approached the accused in January, 2016 for payment in terms of the agreement dated 07.01.2015 and on the same day, accused had issued post-dated cheque for Rs.38,61,540.85 dated 23.03.2016 drawn on HDFC Bank, Sahakara Nagar subject to final settlement and one more post-dated cheque drawn on the same Bank dated 24.04.2016 for balance amount of Rs.9,16,000/-. It is further alleged that complainant presented the first cheque on 23.03.2016 for encashment through ICICI Bank, Bengaluru which was returned with remarks "payment stopped by drawer". It is stated by the complainant that though accused being contacted, he was informed to re-present the cheque and accordingly, complainant presented both the cheques for encashment through his banker.- Syndicate Bank, Gowdalli branch, Somwarpet Taluk, Kodagu and first cheque was returned on 29.04.2016 with the banker's remarks "payment stopped by the drawer" and second cheque for Rs.9,16,000/- was returned on 29.04.2016 with remarks "funds insufficient". Hence, complainant is said to have issued notice on the accused on 09.05.2016. After due service of notice, accused having not chosen to reply and not complied with the demand made in the notice, complaint in question came to be presented before Principal Civil Judge & JMFC, Somwarpet. Jurisdictional Court and said Court has taken cognizance of the offence on 02.07.2016 and summons have been issued to the petitioner accused. Hence, petitioner is before this Court for quashing of the complaint and order dated 02.07.2016 taking cognizance of the offence in CC No.614/2016 pending on the file of Principal Civil Judge & JMFC, Somvarpet, Kodagu.

(2.) Heard Sri. M. S. Rajendra Prasad, learned Senior Counsel appearing for petitioner and Ms. Indusri. S. Rao, learned Advocate appearing for respondent. Perused the records.

(3.) Short point that arises for consideration in this petition is: