2020 (11) TMI 836

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... The summary of the said complaint was that, there is a civil dispute pending between the parties in O.S.No.132/2014, as such, the accused in the said complaint had developed rivalry against the complainant. All the three accused in furtherance of :3: Crl.P.No.101539/2017 their common intention to cheat the complainant of a sum of Rs. 25,00,000/-, some how secured a withdrawal slip from Karnataka Central Co-operative Bank, Haveri Branch, in the name of the complainant and by themselves filling up the contents for a sum of Rs. 25,00,000/- and forging the signature of the complainant, showing its date of issue as 11.04.2015, presented the said cheque for its realisation. After its dishonor, they got issued a notice to the complainant through....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... for the petitioner in his arguments submitted that, after the institution of the complaint the complainant has paid the entire cheque amount and has collected back the cheque in question, as such, the private complaint filed by him, does not survive. Learned counsel also submits that, in the absence of the complainant producing the alleged dishonoured cheque, the learned Magistrate ought not to have taken the cognizance of the offence. 8. The learned counsel for the respondent in his arguments submitted that, the legal notice at Annexure- A clearly shows that the accused had issued a legal notice alleging the dishonour of the cheque for a sum of Rs. 25,00,000/-, for which a suitable reply as per Annexure-B was given to them without any ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....l notice, he rushed to his Banker and enquired about the same and :8: Crl.P.No.101539/2017 in response, the Banker told him that the cheque mentioned in the legal notice at Annexure-A was not issued to the complainant by the said Banker. Mentioning the same in his reply notice as well denying the issuance of cheque as well the alleged signature in the said cheque, the complainant disowned the alleged cheque and denied his liability towards the accused. 10. With the above undisputed fact when the complaint lodged by the respondent herein is verified, the respondent as a complainant, has narrated the very same alleged facts in his complaint and contended that the accused only with an intention to harass him and for putting him to some d....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....hat the cheque amount of Rs. 25,00,000/- has been paid to them in cash and the cheque has been collected back by the present complainant (respondent). Therefore, the said argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner on the said line is not acceptable. 13. Further the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner that, when the Banker has stated that the said cheque was not issued to the complainant, the present complainant/ respondent cannot initiate the present complaint, as such, the present complaint is not maintainable, is also not acceptable, for the simple reason that, when the accused through their legal notice at Annexure-A have alleged that the complainant had issued a cheque for a sum of Rs. 25,00,000/- to them an....