IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 21^st DAY OF JANUARY, 2021

BEFORE

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P. SANDESH

CRIMINAL PETITION No.2096 OF 2020

BETWEEN

SRI KONDURU SRINIVASALU

S/O. K. SEETHARAMAIAH,

AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,

No.991, 2^ND FLOOR,

K.V.S. COMPLEX, HRBR LAYOUT,

BANASWADI OUTER RING ROAD,

BENGALURU – 560 043.

... PETITIONER

(BY SRI PRAKASH M.H., ADVOCATE)

AND

1.

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

BY MAHADEVAPURA POLICE STATION,

BANGALORE CITY,

REPRESENTED BY THE

STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,

HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,

BANGALORE – 560 001.

2.

SRI LOKESH S.

S/O. LATE SRINIVASA M.C.,

AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,

RESIDING AT No.95/1,

RONAK BUILDING, SIDDAPPA LAYOUT,

IMMANAHALLI MAIN ROAD,

WHITEFIELD POST,

BENGALURU – 560 066.

... RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI K.S. ABHIJITH, HCGP FOR R-1;

SRI ANANTHA KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R-2.)

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF

CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, PRAYING TO QUASH THE CHARGE

SHEET IN C.C.No.51061 of 2017 ON THE FILE OF THE XXIX

ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE AT MAYO HALL,

2

BENGALURU CITY FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION

420 OF THE INDIAN PENAL CODE.

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS

DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

O R D E R

This petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying

this Court to quash the proceedings initiated against the

petitioner in C.C.No.51061/2017 pending on the file of the XXIX

Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Mayo Hall, Bengaluru,

for the offence punishable under Section 420 of IPC.

2.

The

factual

matrix

of

the

case

is

that

the

complainant/respondent No.2 herein had filed a complaint on

19.05.2016 and in the complaint, the allegation made against

the petitioner/builder is that he agreed to provide a flat and the

complainant paid Rs.35.00 lakhs by way of cash. As agreed, the

petitioner did not provide the flat instead a Memorandum of

Understanding (MoU) was entered into between the parties and

the petitioner agreed to pay Rs.50.75 lakhs, for which, the

petitioner issued five post-dated cheques and all the cheques

were dishonoured. It is alleged that the petitioner had promised

the complainant to honour those cheques signed by him on

02.05.2016, but to his shock and surprise, all the cheques were

dishonoured and the petitioner/builder knowing fully well that the

3

cheques would be dishonoured had issued those cheques and

thereby, committed the offence punishable under Section 420 of

IPC. Since he had played fraud and cheated the complainant, the

conduct of the petitioner amounts to an offence of cheating.

Based on the complaint, the Police have registered a case in FIR

No.249/2016 for the offence punishable under Section 420 of

IPC. The Police have also investigated and filed the charge sheet

against the petitioner.

3.

The petitioner in the present petition would contend that in

respect of bouncing of cheques, proceedings were initiated under

Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short

‘N.I.Act’). In the said case, the petitioner was convicted, against

which an appeal was filed and in the appeal also, the order of

conviction was confirmed. Against the said order, the matter is

pending before this Court. It is contended that respondent No.2

initiated parallel proceedings by filing a complaint with the Police.

It is contended that in the proceedings under Section 138 of the

N.I.Act, there was no averment with regard to dishonest

intention and only in the complaint such allegation is made. It is

also contended that when proceedings under Section 138 of the

N.I.Act is initiated, there cannot be any parallel proceedings

which amounts to abuse of process. Learned counsel would also

4

submit that in terms of the order of the Trial Judge and also in

the appeal, part payment was made. Learned counsel would

als