2020 (12) TMI 1004 - HC - Indian Laws

Dishonor of cheque - petitioners are said to have misused the cheques representing that the said cheques belong to the account of Kiran @ Kirankumar and those cheques were issued to the 2nd respondent herein by the present petitioners - HELD THAT - The charge sheet, which are almost identical in both the cases would go to show that the Investigating Officer during the course of investigation is said to have recorded statements of some of the material witnesses. Among them, the more pertinent and material witness is CW4 - Shashikant Dharmanna Mopagar. According to the complainant, the place of offence is said to be the office of the said CW4, who claims himself to be the bond writer. He is shown to have given his statement before the police, wherein he shown to have stated that, on the alleged date of incident, all the three petitioners/accused came to his office and the complainant was also there, where the accused are claimed to have received the loan amount from the complainant. He has stated that, for the said transaction as a bond writer, he was requested by the petitioners to prepare documentation in the form of two promissory notes. As such, when the Investigating Officer is said to have collected certain materials to proceed against all the three accused in the charge sheets for the alleged offences, I do not consider that it is a fit case where the Court can interfere by exercising its power under Section 482 Cr.P.C - Petition dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
Quashing of criminal proceedings under Sections 182, 404, 406, 419, 420, 465, 468, 471, and 474 of IPC and Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Quashing of Criminal Proceedings
The petitioners sought quashing of criminal proceedings against them under various sections of IPC and the Negotiable Instruments Act. The charge sheets alleged that the petitioners, as family members of the deceased Sadashiv Dodamani, misused cheques belonging to him to deceive the complainant. The investigating officer recorded statements of material witnesses, including CW4, who claimed to have prepared promissory notes at the request of the petitioners. CW4's statement implicated the petitioners in deceiving the complainant by misusing cheques and executing promissory notes falsely. The court noted that the materials collected by the investigating officer supported proceeding against all three accused. The court held that it was not a fit case for interference under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and dismissed the criminal petitions.

Conclusion:
The High Court of Karnataka dismissed the criminal petitions seeking quashing of proceedings under various sections of IPC and the Negotiable Instruments Act, as the evidence collected during investigation supported proceeding against the accused.