Karnataka High Court
Mallikarjun S/O Irappa Shenduri vs Surekha S/O Nandkumar Haval on 7 February, 2018
:1:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2018
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.SUDHINDRARAO
Crl.P.No.102498/2017
BETWEEN
MALLIKARJUN S/O IRAPPA SHENDURI
AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O: BORAGAL, TQ: HUKKERI,
DIST: BELAGAVI.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI.SRINIVAS B.NAIK, ADVOCATE)
AND
SUREKHA S/O NANDKUMAR HAVAL
AGE: 55 YEARS, OCC: DOCTOR,
R/O: SANKESHWAR, TQ: HUKKERI,
DIST: BELAGAVI.
... RESPONDENT
(BY SMT.SUNANDA P.PATIL, ADVOCATE)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C., SEEKING TO QUASH THE
ORDER DATED 30.10.2017 ON THE FILE OF PRL. CIVIL
JUDGE AND JMFC COURT, SANKESHWAR, IN C.C.NO.
281 OF 2015 UNDER SECTION 138 OF N.I. ACT AND
ALLOW THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE PETITONER
UNDER SECTION 91 OF CR.P.C.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING,
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
:2:
ORDER
The petitioner has filed this petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. seeking to quash the order dated 30.10.2017 on the file of the Prl. Civil Judge and JMFC Court, Sankeshwar in C.C.No.281/2015 and to allow the application filed under Section 91 of Cr.P.C.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the application filed by the petitioner in C.C.No.281/2015 under Section 91 of Cr.P.C. for summoning the documents from PACL India Ltd., Company. It is further submitted that the petitioner was working as Insurance Advisor to the said company and as per the advise of the petitioner the respondent had invested and taken policies in that company.
The said company went into liquidation and the respondent started to demand the invested policy amount from the petitioner.
:3:
As the amount paid by the complainant was not returned. On repeated demand, the petitioner had issued the disputed cheque. In this connection the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that these documents are necessary to prove his case.
It was also submitted that the examination of the accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. is already completed.
4. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that the accused borrowed the amount from the complainant promising to repay the said amount within one or two months. After lapse of stipulated time, the complainant requested the accused to repay the said amount, who in turn issued a cheque and the same came to be dishonored.
5. In the context and circumstances of the case, I am of the sincere view that allowing of the application is not necessary and filing of the application by the petitioner is too late. Further the prayer, which is seeking :4: and the purpose is not perfectly within the scope of the domain of the case.
Accordingly, the petition is rejected.
Sd/-
JUDGE Vnp*