A civil suit for recovery does not bar concurrent criminal proceedings for cheque dishonor, affirming their simultaneous maintainability under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO QUASH/SET ASIDE THE CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.8737/2020 PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE HON’BLE COURT OF XXXVI ADDL.C.M.M., BENGALURU.

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 11-09-2024, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-

CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA

CAV ORDER

The petitioner is before this Court calling in question proceedings in C.C.No.8737 of 2020 pending before the 36th Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore City registered by the respondent under Section 200 of the Cr.P.C. for offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (‘the Act’ for short).

2. Heard Sri Amaresh A. Angadi / Sri V. Sudhakar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Smt. Vijetha R Naik learned counsel appearing for the respondent.

3. The facts, in brief, as borne out from the pleadings are as follows:-

The petitioner and respondent were working together at the office of Hi Tech Computer as Stationary House Keeping Suppliers and are said to be knowing each other for a long time. In the year 2014, the petitioner establishes an office in the name and style of Venus Office Needs in the name of his brother-in-law. In 2017 the petitioner starts his own independent office in the name and style of Venus Office Automation. The respondent joins the office of the petitioner during this period and continued to work as stationary and housekeeping supplier. On 15-11-2018, it is the narration that the petitioner and the respondent go to the market for purchase of materials and were short of ₹5,00,000/-. The respondent tendered ₹5,00,000/- to the petitioner and after returning to the office, for ₹5,00,000/- that was tendered, the petitioner issued a cheque which was a blank cheque signed in Gujarati. The respondent is said to have stated that he would fill up the cheque for ₹5,00,000/- and accordingly received the blank cheque from the petitioner. The cheque is neither filled in nor presented. On 05-09-2019 the respondent is said to have requested the petitioner to give cash in lieu of ₹5,00,000/- cheque as his health has deteriorated and needed money for surgery. The respondent is said to have assured that he would return the blank cheque on payment of ₹5,00,000/- by way of cash. It is averred that the petitioner has paid cash of ₹5,00,000/- to the respondent on 05-09-2019 and requested for return of blank cheque. But, the blank cheque is not returned.

4. Dispute between the two arose and the respondent institutes civil suit in O.S.No.3210 of 2020 seeking return of the amount along with interest. Simultaneously, the respondent files private complaint before the learned Magistrate invoking Section 200 of the Cr.P.C. in P.C.R.No.7814 of 2020. The learned Magistrate after taking cognizance and recording sworn statement issues summons to the petitioner. The petitioner receives summons on 01-04-2021. Challenging issuance of summons and entire proceedings in C.C.No.8737 of 2020, the petitioner is knocking the doors of this Court in the present petition.

5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that once having taken the step of instituting a civil suit for the purpose of recovery of money of the very sum and the Court decreeing the suit even at a later point in time, would bar setting criminal law into motion for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Act. The learned counsel would submit that entire proceedings would become an abuse of the process of law and seeks quashment of the same.

6. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent would vehemently refute the submissions to contend that instituting a civil suit is for the purpose of damages and mere institution of civil suit would not bar criminal law being set into motion, for dishonor of a cheque that was presented for realization on account of non-payment. The learned counsel w