P MANIVANNANKAR Vs. MOHAMMEDKHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is filed by the petitioners-accused under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. praying to set-aside the impugned order, dated 07.07.2015 dismissing the Cri.Revision Petition No. 113/2012 by the V Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Dharwad, sitting at Hubballi, in respect of the offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, and to allow the said Criminal Revision Petition No. 113/2012.

(2.) Brief facts as pleaded by the petitioner in the petition are that respondent No. 1 filed W.P.No.12112/2004 before this Court against the petitioner and others alleging that his lands have been encroached illegally; this Court disposed of the said writ petition directing petitioners herein to disburse an amount of Rs. 12,93,450/- to the owners of the property alleged to have been illegally encroached upon, after ascertaining the same. A cheque dated 02/06/2006 bearing No. 0730821 for Rs.12,93,450/- (Twelve Lakhs Ninety Three Thousand Four Hundred and Fifty Only) was drawn on the State Bank of Mysore in favour of the respondents herein in compliance of the final order passed in the writ petition. Petitioner learnt that lands of respondents not acquired and hence intimated their banker to stop the payment of the cheque as respondent need not be paid. Petitioner filed a Review Petition No. 266/2006 in W.P.No.12112/2004 (LB-RES) and placed all the material facts before this Court and after due consideration the review petition came to be disposed of with certain observations. Respondents filed a private complaint No. 239/2006 before the Court of JMFC-II, Hubballi, under Section 200, Cr.P.C. read with Section 138 of N.I.Act on 26.07.2006 against the petitioners for having stopped the payment of cheque. The petitioners/accused filed an application dated 20.02010 under Sections 197 & 251 of Cr.P.C. and 487 Karnataka Municipal Corporation Act before the trial Court in C.C.No.137/2007. The Court below misread the direction of this Court and rejected the application by seeing it is a defence, same is to be raised during trial. The petitioners/accused approached the jurisdictional District & Sessions Court in Criminal Revision Petition No. 113/2012 with a prayer to consider the question of sanction as per the decision of the Apex Court in "Ashok Sahu v. Gokul Saikia" reported in 1988 Lawsuit (SC) 237. The learned Sessions Judge dismissed the same by the impugned order dated 07/07/2015.

(3.) Heard the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners-accused and also the learned counsel appearing for the respondent- complainants.