S K MANJUNATH Vs. MALLAPPAMAHADEVAPPA BARKER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the petitioner's counsel and the respondent's counsel.

(2.) The petitioner in this petition invoking Sec. 482 of Crimial P.C. sought the relief to quash the order dated 16.09.2014 passed in C.C.No.231/2014 for taking cognizance of the offences against the petitioner for the offences under Sections 379, 465, 470 and 471 of Penal Code and THE entire proceedings initiated against the petitioner. The grounds urged in the petition are that the learned Magistrate has erred in taking cognizance for the offences alleged against the petitioner and the trial Court ought to have considered that there was a transaction between the parties and to discharge the liability to pay the legal debt, the cheque was issued by the respondent and it is relevant to mention that nowhere it was suggested to PW.1 during his crossexamination in 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 (for short, the 'Act') that the cheque was stolen by the petitioner and the police have rightly filed B-report in the private complaint after consideration of the transaction taken between the parties and this aspect of the matter was not at all considered by the trial Court and hence the cognizance taken by the trial Court is liable to be quashed. The other contention of the petitioner is that there is no any explanation from the complainant with regard to filing of the complaint after almost four years lapse and if really the cheque was stolen in the year 2009 itself why he kept quite till 2013 has not assigned any reasons. Only with malafide intention and ulterior motive as a counter blast to the proceedings initiated by this petitioner under Sec. 138 of the Act, a false complaint is filed against this petitioner. The learned Magistrate has also failed to notice that he had informed his bank about stolen of the cheque and requested them to stop the payment of the said cheque amount. If the defence of the respondent was accepted, his banker should not have been issued an endorsement as 'funds insufficient', which clearly indicates that concocted story was created by the respondent otherwise the banker would have been issued the endorsement as 'stop payment' and hence prayed this Court to quash the proceedings.

(3.) The counsel for the petitioner in his arguments has reiterated the grounds urged in the petition and further contended that very lodging of the complaint about the complainant has lost the cheque in the year 2009 itself is created one and there is no explanation on the part of the complainant in filing the complaint in the year 2014 even after the receipt of notice in 2009 itself and it is nothing but an abuse of Court process and prayed this Court to quash the same.