Mr. H.C Chawla vs M/S Iris Computers Ltd on 15 September, 2009

[Cites 1, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Mr. H.C Chawla vs M/S Iris Computers Ltd on 15 September, 2009

Bench: Subhash B.Adi

IN THE HIGH coma" on KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
Dated this the 15"' day of September, 2009 C C
Before

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SUBHASH ;§et%;{<:_u1)IC][:  C

Criminal Petitions 3487, 3488, 3489,V';5§é90' e,».3g~.349I*  2éI:€*$?L"" 'V, 

Between:

Mr H C Chawla ,0 *

Authorised Signatoryl Power of Attorney   

M/3 s D INFOSYS    "  '

H 68/O3, Bali Nagar  .0 __ .  ;  AA 

New Deihi 110 015    _.,_Commo;n Petitioner

(By M/s M G C & Co_._. 

And:

M/S Iris Corr:._puters_ LVt'df_»   

# I08, Prestige Center Po1'nt"~  __ .

Cunningham Road,"BangaIo're[52   

By its Account EVXe_c_:uAti\re C . ' . ' 

Sri Bharama nanda Reddy' ..   ' Common Respondent

 x(VB=y_AM/s-Riingaranzo Asstsn  )

  Petitions are ﬁled under S482 of the Crl.PC praying

 set aside the-orhdefdated 30.5.2009 in PCR 8224/2009 (cc 12213/2009);
 Fog 8223 (c(:g_122:0/2009); PCR 3220/2009 (cc 12209/2009); PCR 8222
 '(CC_1'.32e}.I'_/2009); PCR 8223/2009 (cc 1212/2009) by the xv Add}. CMM,

 Banga1ore._.5



Ix)

These Criminal Petitions coming on for Orders this day, the Court

made the following:

ORDER

The 2"') respondent in all these petitions is a co--accuseéi~._alo';ig>w'ith the K i petitioner. Though notice is issued, since no .:'elief'is«sought;asV'ag.ainVst"it, in my opinion, it is not a necessary party. Petitioner,_is'permitte.d to delete t;he--~?."d respondent.

Petitioner has sought for on the ﬁle of XV Addl. Chief Metropolitan *lvIagistrate,'liangaloreV 824 / 2009 (CC 12213 / 2009); 'Ben -(j_cc"_,i22.i--u.f;2ao9):;'mi>cR 8220/2009 (cc 12209/2009)," pent' €222', 1/2909) and PCR 8223/2009 (CC 12212/2009). vilftespondenty'complainant. tiled a private complaint under S200 Cr.PC interalia alleigingithat itiheiiipetitioner who had made purchase of ._v"computerszlaehalf of the '£"""'accused company, was due of Rs.57,57,388/--. In'thisrreigard," petitioner 'herein on behalf of the 1" accused, had issued several ycheques. 'On presentation of the said cheques, they were returned with a sham 'insufficient funds'. Thereafter, complainant issued a legal notice calling upon the accused.' to make payment. However, no payments were made. In View of the'.-sanize, private complaint was ﬁled by the complainant. 5%-x Learned Magistrate, considering the averments in the complaint}-sworn statement and the material produced by the complainant, ,3"

case to be tried for the offence punishable under S.l38 Instruments Act and has issued summons. It this l up before this Court.

The only contention of the petitioner__is,' the Magistrate at Bangalore has no jurisdiction to try the case as theiltranlsactaion place at Chandigarh and Delhi. The chequeswere issued at Delhi. the proceedings are vitiated.

On the otherlihand, _co3:1nselrepresenting the complainant submitted that though the cheiques'-were issued.at"D'ellhi;'they were presented at Bangalore and the Bangalore Branch hasissuedanlendorsement stating that the cheques were ;"di'shonoui'eEi b:§',:..rheVvi.banker o'f"t'he' accused as funds were insufficient. The legal notice is iis::ue'd._frCm* Bangalore and the same was served on the accused. The _ compla}nant's office isat Ban galore.

» it Considering the circumstances and the fact that the legal notice was not refiliedzbylithe accused and since the legal notice is issued at Bangalore, «%'w2"< cheques were presented at Bangalore, the coinpfainanfs office is at Bzitigaiore, I do not ﬁnd there is any error of jurisdiction.

It is submitted that some matters are g;en'di--."-.=,g& at -'_4De1Vhi.'i'~}iowe\rer, ran such material is produced and that is not the gro:,i11d:1t_oquash'the proceed'f13gS;'V._ Accordingly, petitions faii. The sa_ri_1e: '-are 'd.ismissed'.~

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court