Karnataka High Court
The Managing Director, Raitar Sahakari ... vs Gopinath S/O Krishna Shirasat on 18 January, 2023
Author: Mohammad Nawaz
Bench: Mohammad Nawaz
-1-
CRL.P No. 101639 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 101639 OF 2019 (482-)
BETWEEN:
1. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR,
RAITAR SAHAKARI SAKKARE KARKHANE NIYAMIT,
RANNANAGAR, TIMMAPUR,
TQ- MUDHOL, DIST- BAGALKOTE,
REPD. BY MALLIKARJUN S/O DODDANAIK MALLUR,
AGE- 55 YEARS, OCC- MANAGING DIRECTOR,
R/O- RANNANAGAR, TIMMAPUR,
TQ- MUDHOL, DIST- BAGALKOTE.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. SRINIVAS B NAIK,ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. GOPINATH S/O KRISHNA SHIRASAT
AGE- MAJOR, OCC- CONTRACTOR,
R/O- JAGIRMOHA, AT POST- CHONDI,
TQ- DHARUR, DIST- BEED,
J
Digitally
signed by J
MAMATHA
Location:
STATE MAHARASHTRA-431122
Dharwad
MAMATHA Date:
2023.01.21
12:50:22
+0530
...RESPONDENT
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.P.C.
SEEKING TO QUASH THE ORDER STOPPING OF PROCEEDINGS U/S
258 OF CR.P.C., DATED 22.06.2019 IN C.C.NO.121/2013 ON THE
FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, MUDHOL,
REGISTERED FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE U/S 138 OF NI ACT,
AND RESTORE THE COMPLAINT ON ITS FILE.
-2-
CRL.P No. 101639 of 2019
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE
COURT MADE / DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Petitioner has preferred this petition being aggrieved by the order dated 22.06.2019 passed by the trial Court, stopping the further proceedings under Section 258 of Cr.P.C, mainly on the ground that the said provision could not have been invoked by the learned Magistrate as it is not applicable to complaints under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter for short 'NI Act'). In support of the contention raised, the learned counsel for petitioner has relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court rendered in a Suo Motu Writ Petition (Crl.)No.2 of 2020 reported in 2021 SCC Online SC 325.
2. In the case on hand, Complaint was filed by the petitioner against respondent/accused alleging an offence punishable under Section 138 of NI Act. Inspite of issue of summons and NBW, accused could not be secured. Therefore, the learned Magistrate vide impugned order, closed the further proceedings under Section 258 of -3- CRL.P No. 101639 of 2019 Cr.P.C., observing that complainant has not taken any further effective steps against the accused for securing him before the Court and he has not assisted the Police to secure the accused and therefore, no purpose will be served by keeping the file on board.
3. It is no doubt true that the complaint was presented in the year 2012. However, the summons issued to the accused was refused and therefore, NBW was issued but it was not executed. Order sheet would reveal that even proclamation was issued against the accused on 22.02.2019. In that view of the matter, the impugned order passed by the trial Court stopping the further proceedings under Section 258 of Cr.P.C. on the ground that complainant has not assisted the Police and he has not taken any effective steps and no purpose will be served by keeping the file on board, is not sustainable in law. In the above referred decision, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that Section 258 of Cr.P.C. is not applicable to the complaints under Section 138 of the NI Act. -4- CRL.P No. 101639 of 2019
4. For the foregoing reasons, petition succeeds and accordingly, the order dated 22.06.2019 passed by the Court of Prl. Senior Civil Judge and JMFC., Mudhol in CC No. 121/2013 is set aside.
The complaint shall be restored to the file with a direction to the trial Court to proceed further, in accordance with law.
Sd/-
JUDGE HMB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 24