Karnataka High Court
Pradeep Dnyneshwar Deshmukh vs M/S Bayer Cropscience India Limited on 10 October, 2013
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2013
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.N. KESHAVANARAYANA
CRIMINAL PETITION No.4379/2013
C/W. CRIMINAL PETITION Nos. 4380/2013, 4381/2013
AND 4382/2013
BETWEEN:
Pradeep Dnyneshwar Deshmukh
S/o Late Dhyaneshwar
Narayanrao Deshmukh
Aged about 49 years
R/a Deshmukhpura
Anjangaon Surji
Anjangaon Surji Taluk
Amaravati District
Maharashtra-444 705. .. PETITIONER
(COMMON)
(By Sri. Jayaramaiah, Adv.,)
AND:
M/s Bayer Cropscience India Limited
Formerly known as
Aventis Cropscience India Limited
Agrevo India Limited
Having its reg. off.
At: "Aventis Centre"
# 54-A, Mathuradass Vasanji Road
Andheri Kurla Road
Andheri East
Mumbai - 400 093
2
Regional office at:
"Shreshta Bumi"
# 87, K.R.Road
# 206 & 207, II Floor
Bengaluru-560 004
Repd. By its Regional Controller
Mr. K. Thilagarajan P.A.Holder .. RESPONDENT
(COMMON)
These Criminal Petitions are filed under Section
482 of the Cr.P.C. praying to quash the order dated
11.06.2007 passed by the XXI Addl. C.M.M., Bangalore
by issuing summons to the petitioner in
C.C.No.10574/2003, 10575/2003, 10578/2003 and
10579/2003 respective.
These petitions coming on for Orders this day, the
Court made the following :
ORDER
Common petitioner in these petitions has sought for quashing the prosecution launched for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, in C.C. Nos.10574/2003, 10575/2003, 10578/2003 and 10579/2003 respectively, on the file of the XXI Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Bangalore, on the ground that he was not 3 originally arrayed as accused in the complaint cases; that his father Mr. Dnyneshwar Narayana Rao Deshmukh was arrayed as an accused; that upon the death of the said Desmukh, when a memo was filed before the Court reporting the death of his father and for consequent closure of the cases as abated, the respondent complainant filed objections to the said memo and the jurisdictional Court by order dated 11.6.2007 has held that the complaints are maintainable and directed issue of summons to the petitioner, though he was not the accused in the said cases. It is also contended that no statutory notice as required under Section 138 of the Act has been issued to him. Therefore, order summoning him to face trial in the cases is without jurisdiction.
2. Having heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and on perusal of the documents produced, I find no justifiable grounds to entertain these petitions. 4
3. The prosecutions were launched against M/s. Bharat Krishi Seva Kendra, a proprietary concern, by its proprietor Mr. Deshmukh. The jurisdictional Court before whom the complaints were filed, issued summons to the accused. It appears that the summons issued from the Court were not served. Therefore, non bailable warrant was issued. While executing the non bailable warrant, police appears to have produced the father of the petitioner by name Mr. Dnyneshwar Narayana Rao Deshmukh before the Court. He was later released on bail. Thereafter, the proceedings were continued. At the stage of cross examination of P.W.1., memo came to be filed reporting the death of Dnyneshwar Narayana Rao Deshmukh and consequently, it was sought for closure of the complaints as abated. The said memo was opposed by the complainant respondent, inter alia contending that the present petitioner is the real accused, since he was the drawer of the cheques and the statutory notice was also issued to him, but by mistake, the police arrested 5 the father of the accused and produced him before the Court pursuant to the non bailable warrants issued. According to the respondent complainant, the petitioner is the proper person to be prosecuted as he is the proprietor of M/s. Bharat Krishi Seva Kendra. Learned Magistrate heard both the sides on the said memo and after recording evidence of P.W.2 - Bank Manager of the Bank on which cheques in question had been drawn, by his order dated 11.6.2007 held that the complaints were maintainable and that the prosecutions were initiated only against the petitioner Pradeep Dnyneshwar Deshmukh, therefore, prosecution cannot be closed as abated. In that view of the matter, learned Magistrate directed issue of summons to the petitioner herein by order dated 11.6.2007.
4. Pursuant to the order dated 11.6.2007, summons were issued to the petitioner. However, summons were not served on him. Therefore, non bailable warrants were issued. Non bailable Warrants 6 also are not executed. Perusal of the order sheet indicates that the learned Magistrate has issued proclamation against the petitioner declaring him as a proclaimed offender. In spite of that the petitioner did not appear before the Court. Petitioner has presented these petitions contending that he is not the accused who is sought to be prosecuted and the accused who was sought to be prosecuted has died, therefore, the learned Magistrate ought to have closed the prosecutions as abated. Learned Magistrate during the course of the order dated 11.6.2007 has considered this aspect of the matter and has recorded the findings that the police have committed mistake in producing the father of the petitioner before the Court without proper identification of the accused. It is also necessary to note that father of the petitioner, whom the police produced before Court, appears to have not raised any objection about his having been produced before Court as an accused. Thus, under those circumstances, the Court appears to have proceeded with the cases against 7 the father of the petitioner. That cannot be a ground to hold that the prosecution was initiated against the father of the petitioner. Learned Magistrate, on consideration of the materials placed on record, has recorded a finding that the prosecutions were launched against the petitioner as proprietor of M/s. Bharat Krishi Seva Kendra. Therefore, the prosecutions cannot be closed as abated.
5. Having regard to the reasonings adopted by the learned Magistrate and the conduct of the petitioner in keeping quite for seven long years after the order dated 11.6.2007, I decline to exercise the inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. According to the petitioner, if he had not been served with any statutory notice under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, it is open for him to defend the prosecution on such ground as is open for him by way of defence. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, I find 8 no justifiable ground to entertain these petitions. Hence, Criminal petitions are rejected.
SD/-
JUDGE Cs/-