Karnataka High Court
Bharathy S/O vs Benigopal Jhawar S/O Satyanarayan ... on 3 August, 2009
Author: V Jagannathan
Bench: V Jagannathan
CRL, 91823 E41298?
EES THE §«;;::;§»: <::oU§z'I' 0? KARNATAK5, 5 .. A'
zxgcurr BENCH AT GULBARG;_A_., _"_j ' A
Z3f§:'E'E§£) Wis THE 3% my c{§é"A}é§'_,%;:;;:$vrj, '¥2®91' 'V
figygfig A 1. :' w
mg: §~I{)N'BLE; MR¢JLr3TI<::*§"z!.JA§3A:#1§Aé9§{$ie; H
EETWEEEI:
Bilarathgz S/0
figs: 4;'; years, _
Qcqr: E<mp10y<:{:j_.o'§ 1 .
M/' s.Aru.l M11rL;gan,: Spiniiirzg°=.f* &_
Minsgp) Lt:;1_,,__V % " '*--:;,._
2?] :3 30 1/ Dl:3V§és;I*a!:\jtWu'ai1z; El'.<;:-éu:i._,
Odéanchagfmmg . V' VA
Dim. Dindigal Anna 5» 62.9,"
Tamilnadu. " " .
PETITIONER
(By an (;'r§:étix'.ish s;x:z.a§"h§mp@:r, Adv.)
8éi13:i$V€?}"3aVl\J[' - V ' .9
S/ 0 Satyanara3,?';::n A éjhawar,
"Age: 4f15a.§é'€afS,~ _
Ckce: 811sin6é;.s, V
1.R10. # 1 1-1" Gandhi Chowk,
4. _ V' 'Pé1i<;;hu1*.. Dist. , £!?2ii:r_'£:«..1;f-:.'584M 191$ xmspozvmm V" .gf3j5% $13; Shivaktzmar Kallar, Adv.) "£'h:%$ fizzéminai Psfiticxn. i3 ffled under Sectien 482 of CIPC by Ehf: Advocate far the ;3£ti';ii:msr prszjyirzg that this H<:a11'b}€ N/flNiWV%'HWj7flII7'\1&XXAXK M {§§95L, :3'. 89 I é f ;Z«3'{§O9 "','$w {.3m:.r'£ may ha pkéaseci ta allow the petition and q'ua}s}i mrimixiai pmceadixzgs in {f§.Cf.NQ.92 1/ 2008 on the _f:'£e"<>f.g,E~Is?£_¥3'€~f?__~ki_, Raichtzif and alga grant S1I{1'h other miizifs as thi3__§{<;:1='t;i€' €;32.:a:_'i:"f" fieems iii, in the intarest {}fi{I$tiG6Y 'I{'h:is petition is mming 91:; 'Vite éfjzmrt made tha follawiugz I ' " » ' '~ *
1. Heard 'ihff Icarmsd the iE1,'I'(i€;:§:{)f:C{ of the Qfififion prefkrmcl by a§:£:%1;;ée£§ friai C0321 in P.C,N0,63f2€){)8. .'.ifl vi¢w";*;:f"& mvolved, this pefiger; is ciisgdf:${%td ':A::§§f+__i:£1V;§i1y: = "" "
2. 1 _"'v1V:V>Vf§fi$:«ic3I1$r submits that the I3*%?;i{i011e;; E.sx' 110.3 in {he Frivate cfimfilgmi filed aiicvgiz1gL4"'€;fi_';énc:év$ A15-ufiiéhabie under Section 138 of the:
'VV'}'¥::gc)'£§.é&::1a:;.;'-L,I115:§rum€i1iS§"E::t anti contends that the acc'u::;ed in is 031.2}? a genera} employee of the COIIl:f}aI1jf' is r;{$ii;: p{iI"S()I3_ who had issued the Chiiqtiii, not had Si; gI;t:d'>:h%"§:}:1ver111é:, I101' any natice has Iiifitffl served. upon the E11 thfififi cirmzmsfancss, qilssticm of p.rQ~::<3cd;in.g aCs:tuse& :1¢:;.3~«pe:3"ti01"zer h.er€i:n dares not arise. In " cf the ézaié S-1}}'}£};'iiSSi0EI, Ieaxfied Ceunséi has placed. reliajlcs 0:}. file ruling 0f the Apex Cikilfi r°::§»oz"£<:d in $005}-S SCC CE'--3L.?.8<}14/2S{}*@ 39 (s.us.2=::ammc.maca:s Lad. Vs, mesa ,a;m;;<za- £3:-§ar::;er;
and sougili; for quashing s:>f the §}I'9{?§§€d}:ngS' pfitiiianer.
:3' Per caning, £ea:':1eé'[V"€:§§)1ix"zV4$::..i'V' for C0m_g_3Ia§3:2.a11i suigmiis that _vru£iiig.VV:r§if°er;;ii3{£ :0 by the pc'£.ii:i:>r:£r's Ciounsel hé§':«--b_ee§i consicierzszd by the fmex Cour": the §a;s%§ vs. State of fl*;s::'?Apex Ccyurt in the saié casa Vbbscwafions made in 5 0f the judgmant has heiid that E11;-3.1t$ iéwmpiaint shows that the accused was 011:»: of fiat: §:>f!i:?:rs"vre§1:.)0n.sibl€ for the affairs of the company §s'§v:1o:i"'y'é:t siarted, it Wouid. ha inappropriaie to ' Lgxifash fi*.1gé'V;:;'r€1z: e::+di31gs; against the accused' 4%, E1:g"fl:%::"'£ight of the above 331:3 submissions gut foxwarzi Z ruling cited and going through the complaint 3§ieg_é£=ti£3ns, wherein the camplainant has staztrzd that this _M§C){'i?Ziti{)116I" is £115: Financial Manager ané was ieoking after $116 VV pamthases, paynxents and finazzciai 90:;3:3.mi{m€:1§:s (3.? thf:
£l%{E€?'{§3{i'd. :1::3¢.E <:$mpaz:2}-* akmg wii.h_ éis:f{f1IS€id 130,2 ami .f1:3:'§h€::" in /\ %*.;.)):m)'( M"?
a (E31,, £3.89 §%;'2G{E€% para 39 of the Caniglaini '%'%£'h€i"€i{1 it £3 mfinisiafiérfiil __*éé:;:_i«;ssv€ci 331032 521:. 3 Wflffi jointly Iffifikiflg after 31} Eh?~£§.a€ij§ '5T(I§f3.é}'=§3;f§§iE'§~i"
a{){".".iiS€(i E103 <:9J:t:p:5;z;}; and that §l3a*3:3,;' :';=;:"%;._ xE$p0:*:;3iE3_ia ,,§?;r;_* a1l = _. pz~1j§:m::.nt§,, purchase? :*~:a1€:s, i am view.'ig':§§:';a:t tfiis éfourt taxing: corzsider ihfi--»'%Gfit{fi3.§i€3i3VS':§3'g§t £35,: the igaxrngd {3g";':;:13,S£:§ for &'pet§V'£i»'fi§';1ifc::vfi_:'.' ifi flit? Eight. of the Apex Court {"£f3{fiS1fGI;{' cam mffi 2008 S6 2357;, E3. The fi§:jfiii;{33:;¢r i:¥V.iié'&f5§*é'V4at:§1ibsx'ty ta urge {he aforesaid gromlds $330. . up the contcniian that he has nfiithcr issguacl fi"1:.?V:_ =i:§9j3ic*::"§_i_:Li§:<.;_'.7:'.:'zi'>'i' signed it and that no notice: has §§2f3I1ViS;S1i£3(i *L{)_ 13ii}1"afifi it is far the tale} C()¥.11"§ to czmsidar all ..,_,iheit":'aspeC'is& a:1.d«f}:i:%i€after pmrcee<§ Earthtrl' £0 dispose of the u(3€:1S€i"§I1'véifififaififgfiniiffi is;-'i%h law. Hence, 3: ihis stagag it would 110$ aipp_ft}§;;;ré;»::'§:'L:£§;;f; this Ciouzit ta quash the pmceedings, in that _v'ie:w of matter, petitimfx is rejected.
_ é2, -Afleaveverfi at this stage, Iaarrzeti Caurzs-53 for the petitioner M V. .s3.;fhmi£s that tin": pctiiiioner its? 8:: heart paiicni and is résiding ai «* Tangii. Nadu and §:%.1t:z'e.f2}re, €115 pafitianar be exemptéici .fmm CRL. E389 §4;'2{§{}9 W :3 _;
appeaxancs Erefcm $315: trial {loam 33 {Ear as this submission is conceriléci, ieamzed Cczzzimsci for the respandeizzt. sgbfgiis that nan-bailable warrant has beet: issued agairmt t}1c..~}':€1t;1fi§§§i£tt: "-{ma 'iizfin gsmmlamaiian has Hist} ham} taken 011: th§éfI*::fGré,' gait} prayiar ha rejecteé.
1?. Having hearci the }Lea.z°1:g;«3ci_4'€»"i91v;£1::§:i1V--fa:>r {$21 aforesaid prayer sought by i:3a ri:{t:fi 'f<:)r flfi: pctitioner, i am of thevéiegy {fie ::i£.3z:3issa} of this patitioa, filfi Qgto move the tria} Ciourt " mgard and '£116 triai Caurt after hfééififig ghaii procead to gags agpmpzéam 0rdm':s._ Sci/~ A A R?"