Karnataka High Court
Chandrashekharappa vs Sharanabasappa on 27 February, 2009
Author: Huluvadi G.Ramesh
Bench: Huluvadi G.Ramesh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
CIRCUET BENCH AT 3)}LARWAD
Bated this {she 27" Day of February, 2009
Befure
:Im«: HOEWBLE MR JUSTICE H£;fLz;*L«:éB; }:4A§1E._s?H . «. " JA
Crbniaai Pelitiarzs 698,/2008' aw' ?::§j%2<T2aos"e;a«: 7z:_.z,%2;9é3g"
Between:
Chandrashekharappa SEO Sidda;gpa.['K.Quj%§:geii » ..
58 yrs, Business 8:: Agriculturé, R§0'I$u§ali1§3?ii ~ comman
SaundattiTa1u1g B3é1ga§;m1"YIisirict€L Ektitioner
(By Sri Sanket M'
And:
Sharanabasapga Sfo Wserabizzdiapfja"Kambiyai
71 yrs, R50 Navagagar, Hubii ' '
rep' B}? P A H0ldc:,ASfi Vecrézsh, 41 'yrs
u '_ S50 fihfiranabssappa Kmnhlyai cemmen
i§'..*'.Q Zf~$ava1ia£ga£;'Hub3i Rssponéent
{uB'y..s%i L.éji:s:g:n;£:;T.:*:';»1antagani, Adv.)
-- " These iiiiminal Petitiexzs are filed unéer 8.482, CIZPC praying
-to set aésidé the erder éateci 2.9.2002 in CC 229f3€}(}5; ordsr dated
' 2 CC 22752005; order dated 317.2383 in CC 37952904 by
$15: H, Hubli.
V T This Criminal }'e*.:iti:>n earning an fgr Aémissien this day, the
' '"C'ou1''t mafia the faiiawing:
W
ORDER
As ihe matter involved and the parties axe identical a1IVAii1::;§e'*~« « ' matters, {hay are taken up together for disposal, Th r§,é " -i camplaints were filed before the IMFC, Huhiifay ti§1_érs;spv:ir;.{:1e:tt,:.: :7. " ' The petitioner has prayed for gtsidéhihg ordué?-at E in all these cases by the in t§k§1é"'cQgai;ancé "c>f.Vthe_§.§fl'encc under S.}.38 of the Nego:iab1e"'i:;'gt;um;;::s;V c5sé;';%r£§; .:s_..42o, IPC. and registering the case 2292'zeai;'« Cc._.:z2':}',{'.§2:i:§"' fifrctc: '?79.f2{}G4 respectixrcts and mi par§:$i:$¢<§i.ng's thereon. These cases axise out 03*" the cerfipiémi fxlzsd Bf the negotiable instrumcnts Act. On the fiasis cf utlzéa Cofnplgxéntfiled fbr {iishoneur of cheqa: far .ii§'s11fijiV'<:i:éi1t segnizancefi afier recording the sworn §L1iéV1z;T&z€T';§Qvs:§:: of aitemey hcleiar, process came so be issueé. On tii::..g sr.3»und. :15 such permission was obtained unde: S.3f}25 CZZPC
- _ _ and the p07\=s;§f~ 0f attemey lwider has no pewer to presectlta an behaif of iiilej e.<)r§fi)_'aiz1ang the accusaé is before this Cami. In supper: ef hias argumeng pctitionefis ccsunsei has reiieé upon 3 V' _ ""'.,ci§cas;nn renéemd in Cm? 59752003 éaéed 13.3.2093 wherein the 9:66? / .'%'§fi\/3"
S of issuance of pmeess fer the offence under 8.138 ef the E\Eegetiab1e i '»e instruments Act is set aside and the proceedings are quashed. Learned eounsei fer the petitioner referrieg to fh:.:..deeisi0:: Tiiev V "
ease sf State of germ ii? Kalika Kuer bg,:_Ka1i1vfia'...§';irs,§h & ';»e4;R 2093 sc 2443 , submitted that even per in¢u.«.i}1xm judeg1rxe1§t'Lse§'§nei§zf§'eé per the ratie laid dawn hy ihe etrgéreene cotifi. j§,i1e7'x:._a:se an' haml»,-'i am foflewing the ratie laid dawn by the Sfipfegfie £§e1;§'t -fires; 'inter judgment and net the coneun'e;}1':1eei$i0n.[A the attic laid flown by the Su§#e§'t1e_"'3?3'i3J"%;__ the-_edeeisi0i1",_ ' Cour": wiil became inconsequenti3'i;"" -. _ A' 'j-
It is {h€ €£37g'l'13Z1€mV"{.0fA§i1€w%§fS§30fld€3ni'S eounsei that the said "judgmee£~§*.is per fincuzfium jedgmeni and it came: be fefiowed. Due to V't?1e'§1f§1e?ge£arity«ee:1<ef':iitf£eci by the cam, the cempkainant eaxmoé be made fie '.S¥2.fjf6§,"£ii:1jC§»"V.§ii:?;?é_£),V ;ref.'erring fee the judgment ef the Apex Court, eubmifiefl the 'ease may be remanded ta proceeé frcm the stage prior V * 9:9. issuance efpreeess.
in the cieefisien in Jahangir Maiden Vs 85113: Cmiyappan ' " "flizzdley - ILR 2665 EAR 1221i, the apex cam': whiie defining the f.3§¥€6i' yiw ef 3.209 and 392, CLPC heid that the: power of attorney holder"
rapresent the cancemesd party in case permission for such r6pr;e;'§ént3tim§ ;__ A' is sought from the court iay the concémeé person anti If there is no such pemtxisséon sought by the cé_t1cem,e d jjpérsoii, _ wha has a right has to continue t§1¢.T'p1fosecutio_fi'V--and fi'°i,% "fiA$}"1W'i'.'?.§' (Sf attorney holder cannot be allowed in the fi{%st§{3§ in the proceedings. WV V ' V' in the case of whgg; 'gained magistrate is on the basis sf attorney holcier, after taking §i§£')';g,11;,iL7.*7,:2.l:I5l'€';€t.,':1:i§€~,%,il€ic1"'fiéétfisg.' " cifiurse, as per '$113 ratio laid éown by tfi%:_ is to be represented fer any mama and if t1§e~--.§onaplai:13.*£1t_i§snc;?t in a pesition to prosecute the mattm"
Q13 sf c0z1"1ise-i_§___is not thai counsel cannot represent the '-.V;:i:n7£;f:i:s.L§1:a:1§'<;<r':hé"pa.rt§,' but narsethskesss so far ax giving evidence is ceixcéétnedvvfifir purpose, the cempiainant can be represented by 'V 3 §>f"'--3;tfi?i{ey bug for that, oampiainant has to fiie an appiicaiicsn u x V' 1f§efa:;e. 4_ii1e §'earm3d Magisflate as requireci under S.3fi2. far pmsewting .' an hifi behalf by way sf giving aviéence at any athcar 'as's§$:ance :9 tin: ceunssl an recmd to Whom the vakaiath is entrugtsd U am} in mm, ihf: seat? on such app§cat.i0n. filed under 8.392, }1?C' accerei 32*' permission and then from that stage, once again the court could record the sworn statement of the power of attorney and on "granting sue}; permission allow the power of attorney to give evidence by v;_2y.. swom statement and after recording the same, it has to proe.eed --i 'V'. either by issuing process or pass any other order...in_ aeeo;'dofiee--.rW'it3r'taVw and it is very much pennissibie under S.302::'.Cf.If:C' if the accused by the power of attorney ho'ltdex._V Further, in the instant case, power ettooxey has hifnleefivfiled a complaint. Prior to that what is_Qre:quE"_Ved iiegutir-e_1'eVeA deizall be permission obtained by the orifilirzé such appiication under 3.332. Thereafter -of holder can continue to proceed with the matter!" _' dd Lz;1soVe'fortitiV'e€§v1o§z«the decision in the ease of M29 Skankar 'qr*i;»m}:i¢e re m;sm;;,t.cs to State off! 11 & Qrs -- 20.93 sag (Critninoi) fi9I.'e.dierei1r j_ Court has held that when the payee is a 'gzrroperieterjg eoneern and many a times the power of attorney holder V' :r§avi.%1gt'~;§e:*sor1a§ knowiedge of the 'business, ear: fiie a eomgleint and . .1gi»?e-- geiam as per 3.299, 0:39.
1;. ,-
u v x: 3.» V34 1 E :2 In that View of the mattsr, while modifying the order of the learned Magisitrate and setting aside the issuance of wazrant, w§ii: ié. ailowing the cempiaint to ceniinue, the eréet passed by "
Magistrata taking coglizance is aiso sci aside, the €}r{i€I""'p;:1SS¢{.i'~.£V):1'1' 5.1.2068 for attachinstzt of property and issuaiiéé 6f'wflafifant.;is [;fé¢ a_§}.§<Vi. ' However, with liberty to the compiainant $0 $31: xapp}i»da_€iof1».t0 court to seek perrnissian under $302, pe.i'rrri_tti'12g 13t9§§*ét"0f attorney hakier ti) prosacute the nmtterffhéfcarfiierz iemnéd 'v?~z1agi:strate 1 ta take cognizance and to proceed' 111Tacc'o:cia;tce 'w=iiiz_l3'w_V .-5. /' ...... ..