Back
2020 Supreme(Kar) 1388
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU (DHARWAD BENCH)
S.R. Krishna Kumar, J.
Devakumar - Appellant
Versus
Vijaya - Respondent
Criminal Petition No. 101539 of 2019
Decided On : 01-09-2020
Important Points
Subject
Criminal Law - Negotiable Instruments Act
Act Referred
NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS ACT : S.138, S.142, S.143(a)
Headnote
N.I. Act - Quashing of Order - Sec. 143-A - Summary of Acts and Sections: The court discussed the application of Sec. 143-A of the Negotiable Instruments Act, emphasizing the discretionary nature of the provision and the presumption under Section 139 of the N.I Act. The court also highlighted the power of the trial court to pass a discretionary order without an application from the complainant, and the need for speedy disposal of the case to prevent prejudice or injustice.
Fact of the Case:
The respondent filed a complaint against the petitioner for dishonoring a cheque. The trial court directed the petitioner to deposit 20% of the cheque amount under Sec. 143-A of the N.I. Act. The petitioner sought quashing of this order.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the trial court's discretionary order did not warrant interference, as it was based on the presumption under Section 139 of the N.I Act and the absence of a defense from the accused. The court also emphasized the need for speedy disposal of the case to prevent prejudice or injustice.
Issues: The issues revolved around the trial court's discretion in invoking Sec. 143-A, the absence of an application from the complainant, and the potential prejudice to the accused in depositing the amount.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the trial court's discretionary order under Sec. 143-A was justified, considering the absence of a defense from the accused and the presumption under Section 139 of the N.I Act. The court also emphasized the need for speedy disposal of the case to prevent prejudice or injustice.
Final Decision: The petition was dismissed, and the trial court's order directing the petitioner to deposit 20% of the cheque amount was confirmed. The petitioner was granted a further 60 days to make the deposit, and the trial court was directed to invest the amount in a fixed deposit. The trial court was also instructed to dispose of the case expeditiously, and all rival contentions on merits were left open to be decided by the trial court.
B. Sharanabasawa, Advocate, Gangadhar S Hosakeri, Advocate
JUDGMENT
S.R. Krishna Kumar, J. - In this petition, the petitioner seeks quashing of the impugned order dated 02.07.2019 passed in C.C. No. 531/2019 by the trial Court directing the petitioner to deposit 20% of the cheque amount in terms of Sec. 143-A of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short 'N.I. Act') within a period of 60 days.
2. The brief facts giving rise to the present petition are as follows:
The respondent-complainant filed a private complaint u/s 200 of Cr.P.C. r/w Sec. 142 of the N.I. Act in P.C. No. 32/2019 against the petitioner-accused for offences punishable u/s 138 of the N.I. Act. It was the specific contention of the complainant that towards discharge of legally enforceable debt due from the accused to the complainant, the accused drew and delivered cheque bearing No.368623 dated 16.11.2018 in a sum of Rs.7,00,000/-. The said cheque having been dishonoured for want of sufficient funds, statutory notice dated 14.12.2018 was issued on behalf of the complainant which was received by the accused on 15.12.2018. It was contended that since the accused failed to comply with the demand made in the said notice and thereby committed the aforesaid offence, the complainant filed the said private complaint before the trial Court.
3. On 02.02.2019, the trial Court took cognizance of the said offence and having registered the aforesaid case and having examined the complainant (PW1) who also filed his affidavit and got marked documents at Ex.P.1 to P.5 and after hearing the learned counsel for the complainant, the trial Court took cognizance of the offence punishable u/s 138 of the N.I. Act and issued summons to the accused.
4. On 17.05.2019, the accused appeared before the trial Court and sought for his enlargement on bail which was granted by the trial Court and the matter was adjourned to 02.07.2019 for recording of plea. On that day, both counsel and parties were present and the plea which was recorded was read over and explained to the accused, who denied the plea and claimed to be tried. Under these circumstances, invoking and placing reliance upon the amended provisions contained in Sec. 143-A of the N.I. Act, the trial Court passed the impugned order dated 02.07.2019 directing the accused to deposit 20% of the cheque amount. Aggrieved by the impugned order, petitioner is before this Court by way of the present petition.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent and perused the material on record.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the trial Court committed grave and serious error of law and fact in directing the petitioner to deposit 20% of the cheque amount without assigning any reasons. It was submitted that apart from the fact that the impugned order is a non speaking order without application of mind, the trial Court committed an error in suo moto passing the impugned order without there being any application filed by the complainant invoking Sec. 143-A of the N.I. Act. It was pointed out that even as per the amended provisions of Sec.143-A, the usage of the word 'may' in Sec.143-A(1) clearly indicates that it was not mandatory but only directory and as such, the trial Court had not exercised its discretion properly and legally while passing the impugned order. Learned counsel places reliance upon the decision of the Madras High Court in the case of LGR Enterprises V. P.Anbazhagan Crl. O.P. Nos.15438/2019 and connected matters dated 12.07.2019 in support of his submissions.
7. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent submits that having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case as well as the material on record, the discretionary order passed by the trial court by invoking Section 143-A of the N.I Act did not warrant interference by this Court and as such, he would support the impugned order and seeks dismissal of the petition.
8. I have given my anxious consideration to the rival submissions and perused the material on recor
