Karnataka High Court
Mohammed Iqbal vs Mohammed Mohinuddin on 18 June, 2018
Author: K.N.Phaneendra
Bench: K.N.Phaneendra
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF JUNE, 2018
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.N.PHANEENDRA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.1613/2018
BETWEEN:
MOHAMMED IQBAL
S/O LATE HUSSAIN SAB
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
R/AT DOOR NO.1319/1, 4TH CROSS
BETHURU ROAD, DAVANAGERE-577 001
DAVANAGERE TQ & DISTRICT ...PETITIONER
(BY SRI K.N.NARAPPA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
MOHAMMED MOHINUDDIN
S/O FAZLUR REHMAN
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS
ROOM NO.21, CLASSIC MOTORS
IDGA COMPLEX, P.B.ROAD
DAVANAGERE-577 001 ... RESPONDENT
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C
PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 01.02.2018
PASSED BY THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS
JUDGE, DAVANAGERE IN CRL.R.P.NO.62/2017 WHICH IS
FILED AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 19.08.2017 PASSED
BY THE J.M.F.C.-III COURT, DAVANAGERE IN
C.C.NO.689/2016 AND BE PLEASED TO ALLOW THIS
CRL.P. AND RECALL THE WARRANT AND FLW FOR
2
RS.20,000/- ISSUED AGAINST THE ACCUSED/PETITIONER
AND PERMIT TO LEAD DEFENCE EVIDENCE.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR
ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:-
ORDER
Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner. The respondent though served with notice of this Court, remained absent. No representation. Perused the records.
2. The records disclose that the petitioner is arraigned as accused in C.C.No.689/2016 on the file of the JMFC-III Court, Davanagere, which is a private complaint registered for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 ('NI Act' for short). It is seen that, the accused was released on bail at the initial stages on executing his personal bond and furnishing the surety. He remained absent. Thereafter, when the case is posted for 313 statement of the accused and particularly thereafter recording of 313 statement, the accused remained absent. Hence, warrant was issued to him and he appeared before the Court again on 8.8.2017. He was 3 again enlarged on bail by allowing his application filed under Section 436 Cr.P.C, and consequently the warrant issued against him was recalled on penalty of Rs.100/-. Again conditions were imposed on the petitioner that he shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.30,000/- with one surety and also to furnish cash surety for a sum of Rs.3,000/-. It appears that, he has furnished cash surety of Rs.3,000/- and in spite of granting ten days time he did not furnish the surety for a sum of Rs.30,000/- for his appearing before the Court. Consequently, on 9.8.2017, the Court has passed an order issuing NBW against the accused and also FLW for recovery of a sum of Rs.20,000/- which is the bond amount, pertaining to the bond executed by the accused on the previous occasion when he was enlarged on bail for the first time. Against which order of issuance of the NBW, the petitioner has approached the Sessions Court in Criminal Revision Petition No.52/2017 on the file of the II-Additional District and Sessions Judge, Davanagere. The learned Sessions 4 Judge also dismissed the Revision Petition. Hence, the petitioner is before this Court.
3. Of course, I do not find any strong reasons to deviate from the opinion expressed by the learned Magistrate and as well as the Sessions Judge as they have dealt with the matter in accordance with law. However, it is seen that the Court has taken an amount of Rs.2,000/- as cash security for the appearance of the accused on 18.8.2017 and 19.8.2017 because the petitioner has not furnished the surety for his appearance before the Court as ordered by the Trial Court on 8.8.2017, an NBW was issued on 19.8.2017. However, bail order granted by the Trial Court was not cancelled. The petitioner hereby before this Court undertakes that he did not jump bail and he would regularly appear before the Trial Court and assist the Court in disposing of the matter as expeditiously as possible. Therefore, he seeks one more opportunity to appear before the Court and assist the Court for disposal of the case.
5
4. Under the above said circumstances, when the matter is pertaining to an offence under Section 138 of the NI Act, in my opinion, it is admixture of both civil and criminal liability, in my opinion, one more opportunity should be granted to the petitioner to appear before the Trial Court promptly and to effectively assist the Court for final disposal of the case. Therefore, with that assurance, the NBW issued by the learned Magistrate requires to be quashed. However, the petitioner is hereby directed to appear before the Trial Court on 02.07.2018 to furnish surety as ordered by the Court for a sum of Rs.30,000/-, in that eventuality, the Trial Court has to proceed with the case in accordance with law. The learned Counsel submitted that the case is set down for defence evidence. The petitioner is at liberty to lead his evidence and assist the Court for further proceedings for early disposal.
5. With these observations, NBW issued against the petitioner dated 19.8.2017 is hereby quashed and the FLW for recovery of Rs.20,000/- is also hereby set 6 aside. However, the Magistrate is at liberty to initiate separate proceedings for recovery of the said bond amount of Rs.20,000/- in accordance with law.
6. Accordingly, the petition is allowed.
Sd/-
JUDGE cp*