M/S SUVARNA COOPERATIVE BANK LTD. versus STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ANR. on 9 December 2021

1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgmentand order dated 17.07.2014 passed by the High Court of Karnatakapassed in Criminal Petition No.5763 of 2013 by which the High CourtEhas quashed the criminal proceedings against the private respondentherein for the offences under Sections 120B, 408, 409, 420 and 149 ofIPC, the original complainant has preferred the present appeal.

2. That criminal proceedings were initiated against the privaterespondent herein and others. The complainant – bank filed the complaintFunder Section 200 Cr.P.C. before the Court of learned Addl. ChiefMetropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore being PCR 15250 of 2009 (re-numbered as CC 22308 of 2012). Thereafter an FIR (Crime No.127 of2010) was registered before the Chickpet Police Station under Sections120B, 408, 409, 420 and 149 of IPC. That on completing the investigationa charge-sheet was filed against the private respondent herein. TheGprivate respondent herein – original accused no.1 approached the HighCourt by way of Criminal Petition No.5763 of 2013 to quash the criminalproceedings in exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

2.1 By the impugned judgment and order the High Court hasquashed the criminal proceedings against the private respondent – originalH

accused no.1 mainly on the ground that in absence of the original accusednos. 2 and 3 in the PCR and in absence of the officers of the draweebank informing the payee’s banker with reference to dishonour of oneof the cheques well within the time stipulated in the Clearing HouseRules, they can be said to have committed the offences under Sections408 and 409 of IPC, the charge-sheet could not have been filed onlyagainst accused no.1. By observing so the High Court has quashed thecriminal proceedings against the original accused no.1.

2.2 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgmentand order passed by the High Court quashing the criminal proceedingsagainst the original accused no.1, the original complainant has preferredthe present appeal.

3. We have heard Shri Amith Kumar, learned counsel appearingfor the appellant and Shri H.V. Nagaraja Rao, learned counsel appearingfor the respondent.

4. We have perused and considered the impugned judgment andorder passed by the High Court and the reasoning given by the HighCourt mentioned in paragraphs 7 and 8 while quashing the criminalproceedings against the original accused no.1. Having gone through andconsidered the reasoning given by the High Court while quashing thecriminal proceedings against original accused no.1, we are of the opinionthat the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court quashingthe criminal proceedings against the private respondent herein – originalaccused no.1 is unsustainable, both, in law and on facts. The High Courthas observed that in absence of the officers of the drawee bank informingthe payee’s banker with reference to dishonour of one of the chequeswell within the time stipulated in the Clearing House Rules which amountsto offence under Sections 408 and 409 of IPC,without the presence ofaccused nos. 2 and 3 in the PCR, the charge-sheet could not have beenfiled only against accused no.1. While quashing the criminal proceedingsthe High Court has observed in para 8 as under:

“8. In the light of the complainant keeping quite in not taking anyaction against incomplete charge sheet, which is filed by the firstrespondent police in arraigning only accused nos. 1 and 6 asaccused in CC.No.22308/2012, the prosecution against two ofthem without the presence of other persons, who are said to have AB

C

D

E

F

G

H

Ainvolved in the same, would not be complete charge sheet and thealleged offence would not be complete against two of them withoutthere being the accomplice to the said act also being arraigned asthe accused. In that view of the matter, this Court feel thatprosecuting accused nos. 1 and 6 in the instant case, in the absenceof accused 2 and 3, would be of no avail and would not take thisBmatter to the logical end. Hence, the same is required to bequashed.”

4.1 The aforesaid cannot be a ground to quash the criminalproceedings against the accused who was charge-sheeted by theInvestigating Officer after thorough investigation. Merely because someCother persons who might have committed the offences, but were notarrayed as accused and were not charge-sheeted cannot be a ground toquash the criminal proceedings against the accused who is charge-sheetedafter a thorough investigation. During the trial if it is found that otheraccused persons who committed the offence are not charge-sheeted,Dthe Court may array those personsas accused in exercise of powersunder Section 319 Cr.P.C. Merely because some of the persons whomight have committed the offences are not charge-sheeted, cannot be aground to quash the proceedings against the accused charge-sheetedafter having found prima facie case against him after investigation.Nothing has been further observed by the High Court on merits and/orEon the allegations against the private respondent herein – original accusedno.1.

4.2 Under the circumstances the impugned judgment and orderpassed by the High Court quashing the criminal proceedings against therespondent no.2 herein – original accused no.1 deserves to be quashedFand set aside.

5. In view of the above and for the reason stated above presentappeal succeeds. Impugned common judgment and order passed by theHigh Court quashing the criminal proceedings against the privaterespondent no.2 – original accused no.1 initiated pursuant to privateGcomplaint filed in PCR 15250 of 2009 filed before learned Addl. ChiefMetropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore which were subsequently registeredas FIR No.127 of 2010 on the file of Chickpet Police Station and therebyregistered as CC No.22308 of 2012 is hereby quashed and set aside.Present appeal is allowed accordingly.

H

Now, on quashing and setting aside the impugned judgment andorder, the respondent no.2 herein – original accused no.1 be furtherprosecuted for the offences for which he was charge-sheeted and shallface trial which shall be dealt with and considered in accordance withlaw and on its own merits.

Bibhuti Bhushan Bose

Appeal allowed.

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H