9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (12) TMI 1004X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 420, 465, 468 and 474 read with Section 34 of the IPC and CC No.188/2017 for the offences punishable under Sections 182, 404, 406, 420, 465, 468, 471 and 474 read with Section 34 of the IPC. Both the cases are said to be pending in the Court of the learned Civil Judge and JMFC at Bhatkal (hereinafter referred to as 'the trial Court', for brevity). The petitioners have sought for quashing of the said criminal proceedings against them. 2. The present respondent No.2 is the complainant in both the cases, whose private complaint was investigated by the 1st respondent Police, which has resulted into they filing charge sheet against the present petitioners in both the cases. The allegations made in both the charge sheets against the pet ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed two separate criminal proceedings under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act', for short), against the drawer of the instrument. However, he came to know that the said cheques issued by the drawer and his family, i.e., the present petitioners, are the cheques belonging to one Sri. Sadashiv Dodamani, who is said to be the father of the petitioners Savitri and Kiran @ Kirankumar and husband of another petitioner Smt.Kasturibai. The said Sadashiv Dodamani was said to be working as a head constable in the police department and died on 10.07.2009. The cheques which were issued to the present complainant and bearing Nos.833083 and 833086, were found to have been issued by the banker to th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 65 and 468 of the IPC. The trial Court referred the case for investigation under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. The Investigating Officer submitted the charge sheets confining the same to the present petitioners only for the above said offences. Thus, against those two charge sheets in those two criminal cases, the present petitioners have filed the present petition. 4. Respondent No.1 is being represented by the learned HCGP and respondent No.2 is being represented by his counsel. 5. Though these matters are listed for admission, with the consent from both side, the same is taken up for its final disposal. 6. Heard the arguments from both side and perused the materials placed before this Court. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioners in his ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng 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. Accordingly, he prepared two promissory notes, one each in the name of Kiran @ Kirankumar and Savitri and in his presence, the accused returned those documen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
