NANDAKUMAR NAIDU Vs. HIS HOLINESS SRI RUDRAMUKHI DEVARU AND STATE OF KARNATAKA BY TIPTUR TOWN POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this petition the petitioner has prayed for setting aside the order dated 07.09.2010 and the entire proceedings in C.C. No. 887/2010 pending on the file of Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Tiptur. Petitioner filed four criminal cases against respondent No. 1 in C.C. Nos. 916/2010, 914/2010, 915/2010 and 1251/2010 on the file of JMFC at Hubli for the offences punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short 'the Act'). Respondent No. 1 filed four criminal petitions before this Court in Crl. P. No. 7755/2010, Crl. P. No. 7757/2010, Crl. P. No. 7758/2010 and Crl. P. No. 7756/2010 to quash proceedings initiated under Section 138 of the Act on the file of JMFC at Hubli. This Court by separate orders dismissed all the four petitions filed by respondent No. 1 and allowed continuance of proceedings before the trial Court at Hubli.

(2.) WHEN the matter stood at that stage respondent No. 1 filed a private complaint against the petitioner in PCR No. 32/2010 for the offences punishable under Section 408, 419, 477 read with Section 420 IPC. The jurisdictional Magistrate at Tiptur referred the matter to the jurisdictional police for investigation under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. Investigation is completed and chargesheet is filed in C.C. No. 882/2010 on file of Senior Civil Judge and JMFC at Tiptur. In the private complaint filed by respondent No. 1 it is contended that petitioner herein misused the faith reposed by respondent No. 1 and with an intention to make unlawful gain, fabricated documents, misused the blank signed papers and cheques and filed false cases. In identical circumstances the Supreme Court in the case of Mahindra and Mahindra Financial Services Ltd. and Another Vs. Rajiv Dubey, JT (2008) 13 SC 455 held that the initiation of proceedings by the accused who is involved for the offences under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is manifestly attended with malafide or when the proceedings is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private or personal grudge are liable to be quashed. In the circumstances the proceedings against the petitioner are liable to be quashed.