Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the records. Learned counsel for the respondent inspite of granting opportunity, remained absent. There is no representation. Hence, the matter is heard on merits and is being disposed off by this order.
2. The respondent herein has lodged a complaint under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. against the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act (hereinafter referred to as N.I. Act). It is the case of the complainant that, the petitioner has availed a on demand loan from the complainant on the guarantee of one Maruti S/o Manikappa Kashampur and for the repayment of the 3overdue installments, he has issued cheque bearing No.249352 dated 31.07.2013 for Rs.10,02,000/-. It is his further case that, the accused while issuing the cheque knew that, he has issued the same for discharge of a legally recoverable debt and without there being substantial amount in the Bank. The said cheque was presented to the State Bank of India, Branch Manhalli and the same came to be dishonored. Therefore, the Bank i.e., Pragathi Krishna Grameen Bank, Bidar has filed a complaint.
3. After appearance before the Court, the accused has not raised any objection at the earliest point of time and allowed the Court to record the plea and infact he cross-examined the complainant and taken time to lead the defence evidence. At this stage, the present petition is filed.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that, the Bank cannot claim that, it is a person, so as to 4attract the provisions under Sections 138 and 142 of the N.I. Act.
5. It is the basic principle of law that, any Corporate body can also be treated as a person not for the purpose of criminal liability, but for the purpose of all the transactions. Criminal liability if arises against the Company or Corporate body, it can not be imprisoned but fined. It should be represented by a competent person, who will take care of the transactions of the Company or the Corporate body. Therefore, the said submission of the learned counsel is baseless and the same is liable to be turned down.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submitted that the complainant has also filed a civil suit for recovery of the money on the basis of the said cheque.
57. Section 138 of N.I. Act and civil liability are made distinct and separate. Therefore, the party has got both rights to file a suit and also to prosecute the criminal proceedings. There is no bar under any law for the time being in force to exercise such powers. Therefore, this ground is also untenable and the same is liable to be turned down.
8. Knowing fully well that the case is set down for defence evidence, the present petition is filed after long lapse of time without raising these points either before the trial Court or at the earlier stage before any higher Courts. Therefore, it amounts to abuse of process of law. Therefore, the petitioner is liable to be saddled with cost. Under the above said circumstances, in view of the matter being pending before the trial Court for defence evidence, it is not the stage, wherein the Court can interfere by exercising the powers under Section 482 of 6Cr.P.C. Therefore, the petition is liable to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed with cost of Rs.2,000/- to be payable to the respondent. The trial Court has to take care to see that the cost is paid to the complainant. In view of dismissal of the petition, I.A.1/2017 filed for stay does not survive for consideration and the same is accordingly rejected. Sd/- JUDGE