IMPORTANT POINT
Merely because some of persons who might have committed offences are not charge-sheeted, cannot be a ground to quash proceedings against accused charge-sheeted after having found prima facie case against him after investigation.

JUDGMENT :

M.R. Shah, J.

1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order dated 17.07.2014 passed by the High Court of Karnataka passed in Criminal Petition No.5763 of 2013 by which the High Court has quashed the criminal proceedings against the private respondent herein for the offences under Sections 120B, 408, 409, 420 and 149 of IPC, the original complainant has preferred the present appeal.

2. That criminal proceedings were initiated against the private respondent herein and others. The complainant - bank filed the complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C. before the Court of learned Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore being PCR 15250 of 2009 (re-numbered as CC 22308 of 2012). Thereafter an FIR (Crime No.127 of 2010) was registered before the Chickpet Police Station under Sections 120B, 408, 409, 420 and 149 of IPC. That on completing the investigation a charge-sheet was filed against the private respondent herein. The private respondent herein - original accused no.1 approached the High Court by way of Criminal Petition No.5763 of 2013 to quash the criminal proceedings in exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

2.1 By the impugned judgment and order the High Court has quashed the criminal proceedings against the private respondent - original accused no.1 mainly on the ground that in absence of the original accused nos. 2 and 3 in the PCR and in absence of the officers of the drawee bank informing the payee’s banker with reference to dishonour of one of the cheques well within the time stipulated in the Clearing House Rules, they can be said to have committed the offences under Sections 408 and 409 of IPC, the charge-sheet could not have been filed only against accused no.1.

By observing so the High Court has quashed the criminal proceedings against the original accused no.1.

2.2 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court quashing the criminal proceedings against the original accused no.1, the original complainant has preferred the present appeal.

3. We have heard Shri Amith Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Shri H.V. Nagaraja Rao, learned counsel appearing for the respondent.

4. We have perused and considered the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court and the reasoning given by the High Court mentioned in paragraphs 7 and 8 while quashing the criminal proceedings against the original accused no.1. Having gone through and considered the reasoning given by the High Court while quashing the criminal proceedings against original accused no.1, we are of the opinion that the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court quashing the criminal proceedings against the private respondent herein - original accused no.1 is unsustainable, both, in law and on facts. The High Court has observed that in absence of the officers of the drawee bank informing the payee’s banker with reference to dishonour of one of the cheques well within the time stipulated in the Clearing House Rules which amounts to offence under Sections 408 and 409 of IPC, without the presence of accused nos. 2 and 3 in the PCR, the charge-sheet could not have been filed only against accused no.1. While quashing the criminal proceedings the High Court has observed in para 8 as under:

“8. In the light of the complainant keeping quite in not taking any action against incomplete charge sheet, which is filed by the first respondent police in arraigning only accused nos. 1 and 6 as accused in CC.No.22308/2012, the prosecution against two of them without the presence of other persons, who are said to have involved in the same, would not be complete charge sheet and the alleged offence would not be complete against two of them without there being the accomplice to the said act also being arraigned as the accused. In that view of the matter, this Court feel that prosecuting accused nos. 1 and 6 in the instant case, in the absence of accused 2 and 3, would