Point of Law : Inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. though wide, has to be exercised sparingly, carefully and with caution and only when such exercise is justified by the tests specifically laid down in the section itself. In exercising its jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. the High Court would not embark upon an enquiry as to whether the evidence in question is reliable or not or whether on a reasonable appreciation of it, accusation would not be sustained at this stage of proceedings

ORDER :

1. This petition is filed by petitioner - Sri. T. Karthik Raja/accused seeking quashing of the criminal proceedings in C.C. No. 434/2016 arising out of PCR No. 115/2016 for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I. Act r/w Section 420 of IPC which is pending before the Court of Civil Judge and JMFC, Kushalnagar.

2. Heard Sri. Abhinav R. learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri. V.R. Sarathy, learned counsel for the respondent. Perused the materials available on record.

3. It is transpired in the criminal prosecution initiated by the respondent/complainant Sri. V.M. Prabhakar against the petitioner/accused in the aforesaid private complaint that the complainant is a reputed grower, trader and merchant of quality green ginger at Kudige, Kushalnagar Hobli, Somwarpet Taluk, Kodagu District. Coming to know about the same, the accused came down to Kudige and started to deal with the complainant and was regularly purchasing green ginger, from the complainant at Kudige and used to transport the same, at his own costs and consequences in the lorries and vehicles belonging to him, with a clear understanding and assuring the complainant that the RMC invoices, Bills, permits would be the concern and responsibility of the accused and he would look after the same. The same has been narrated in the complaint filed by the complainant against accused - T. Karthik Raja.

4. On different dates, the petitioner/accused had come to Kudige and had purchased green ginger of ‘Rigodi’ variety at a specified rate for each bag and towards the payment of the amount, the accused issued cheque dated 29.2.2016, bearing No. 000087 which was drawn on Bank of Baroda, No. 274, V.R. Manor, 6th Main Bus Stop, Bangalore-560038 in favour of the complainant, informing him that said cheque for Rs. 15,00,000/- would be honoured by the said Bank, on presentation of the said cheque on the due date mentioned in the said cheque or on subsequent date.

5. Thereafter, it is stated that to the utter surprise of the complainant, he received a notice dated 13.3.2016 from the accused, making false statements and demanding to return back the cheque from Bank of Baroda which was allegedly given as PDC cheque. It is further transpired in the complaint that to the utter shock of complainant, he received another notice dated 15.3.2016 from the accused, claiming that the accused had been making payments through the Canara Bank account of the complainant and as well as by cash on various occasions on account basis and that the accused had allegedly requested the complainant to submit his bills supported by RMC permits in the name of the accused. However, the complainant is alleged to have failed to accept the alleged request of the accused for a long time. The accused was unable to reconcile his account as to understand the dues receivable or payable towards the supply by the complainant continued till the end of February 2016. It is further alleged that the complainant had allegedly supplied due to alleged application of improper bags used for packing with alleged inadequate mess in addition to the alleged reported receipt of material in fungus formed and that cheque which was allegedly given as security at the commencement of the transaction had been revoked and the complainant states that the said statements made by accused are all false, tissues of imagination, made only to dupe the complainant of his money and also of the green ginger purchased by the accused, from the complainant.

6. Further the complainant presented the said cheque which was issued by the accused towards the legal liability for encashment, to Canara Bank, Branch Kudige, Kushalnagar Hobli, Somwarpet Taluk, Kodagu District and to his utter surprise, the said cheque was returned by the said Bank, with an Return Memo of Canara Bank, Madikeri Main Branch, Kodagu District, to the effect ‘Payment Stopped by the drawer’ thereby meaning that the accused had deliberately and intentionally stopped the payment