Karnataka High Court
D. Vijay vs Mr. G. Jayaprakash on 22 November, 2017
Author: K.N.Phaneendra
Bench: K.N. Phaneendra
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2017
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.N. PHANEENDRA
CRIMINAL PETITION No.5873/2017
BETWEEN:
D. VIJAY
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
S/O LATE DORESWAMY
NO.127, XIII MAIN, II STAGE,
BINNY LAYOUT, VIJAYANAGAR,
BANGALORE-560 040.
...PETITIONER.
(BY SRI VASUDEVA IYENGAR K.T., ADV.)
AND:
MR. G. JAYAPRAKASH
S/P GADDATHIMMAIAH
AGED 45 YEARS
NO.103, OPP. AMBAMAHESWARI TEMPLE
NEAR SHUBODAYA KALYANA MANTAPA
KAMAKSHMIPALYA
BANGALORE-560 079.
...RESPONDENT
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO SET ASIDE
THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE XXIII
ACMM, PENDING CRIMINAL ON THE FILE OF XXIII
ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,
BANGALORE IN C.C.NO.5845/2013 AS ILLEGAL,
PENDING DISPOSAL OF THE ABOVE MATTER.
-2-
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR
ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING: -
ORDER
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. Perused the records.
2. The petitioner has sought for quashing of the entire proceedings which is pending on the file of the XXIII A.C.M.M. in C.C.No.5845/2013. The records disclose that a complaint was filed under Section 138 of N.I. Act by the respondent herein and an application was registered on 17.08.2012 and notice was ordered to the respondent. The accused appeared before the Court on 22.12.2012, since then the matter is pending before the trial Court.
3. The learned counsel has submitted before this Court that on 24.11.2014 PW.1 was examined and his statement has been recorded and the Court has stated that, the earlier evidence is discarded and PW.1 has produced certain documents which are marked as -3- exhibits. Thereafter the case was posted for cross- examination of PW.1 and the accused went on taking time and also submitted that, there was chances of settlement and on 14.1.2015 the Court recorded that the settlement failed and again posted the case for cross-examination of PW.1 by imposing cost of Rs.200/- and Rs.400/- on two occasions. In spite of that the accused has not paid the costs and PW.1 was not cross- examined and further the Court imposed cost of Rs.2,000/- and posted the case for cross-examination. In spite of that, it appears the cross-examination has not been done. Subsequently cross-examination has been done after long lapse of time. The accused also remained absent on various occasions and even he filed application requesting recalling of NBW etc. Ultimately on 23.6.2017 the accused has filed an application under Section 258 of Cr.P.C. seeking dropping of all further proceedings in the matter and to release the accused. The same was objected by the other side and a detailed order has been passed by the Court vide orders dated 23.06.2017. That order remained unchallenged by the -4- accused herein. The said application was rejected imposing cost of Rs.2,000/- as penalty to PW.1 and then the case was posted for cross-examination of PW.1 and thereafter it appears cross-examination has been done.
4. Now after long lapse of more than five years the petitioner has come up with this petition for quashing of the entire proceedings only on the simple ground that the Court has discarded the evidence of PW.1 earlier and permitted the complainant to give further evidence. In stead of going on with the case, he comes before this Court seeking for quashing of the entire proceedings. No other grounds are urged except the above point, when he made an application under Section 258 of Cr.P.C. for dropping of the proceedings he never took care to challenge the said order. Therefore, it makes clear that the accused has been dragging on the proceedings without assisting the Court to dispose of the case on merits as early as possible. The conduct of the accused/petitioner clearly establishes that he has -5- got the intention to drag on the proceedings unnecessarily, if possible to defeat the rights of the complainant. Therefore, I am of the opinion, that such conduct of the petitioner/accused should not be encouraged. Hence the petition is liable to be dismissed.
5. Accordingly the petition is dismissed on payment of costs of Rs.5,000/-.
6. Registry is directed to send a copy of this order to the trial Court to ensure that cost of Rs.5,000/- is deposited by the petitioner/accused before the trial Court and the same has to be paid to the complainant.
Sd/-
JUDGE NG*