Karnataka High Court
M/S.Exim Aides, Silk Exporters vs M/S Sil Import Export Inc/Hanu Inc on 7 March, 2012
Author: N.Ananda
Bench: N.Ananda
O R D E R The petitioner being aggrieved by the W'. Crime No.341/1996 dated Criminal Appeal No.13O/2002gid.ated:l'2§§';Qf9.2OCV'Zis this court. 2. I have heard Sri counsel for petitioner. The learned couns.'e1._fo.rl__VreVspond"e%i:Vt.. absent. 3. The brief facts.__necessa1j,( -orad-isposal of this petition are as follows}; g _l p _ _ if V The peti_tione,r coinplaint under section 200 in No.446/96, alleging offences lpunishabile"Aiundcrfsevctions 418 & 420 IPC. The learned _vMagi'str_ate_frefevrred the complaint under section The"""'respondent filed Criminal Petition
:'"b;e:fore this Hon'ble Court and petitioner challenged' 'thj_eV..'order of this Hon'ble Court rejecting the '.application:_ for Vacating stay and the Hon'ble Supreme Court 1' Criminal Appeal No.1797/96 on 11.10.1996 with a ulf:dii'ectiAon to this Hon'ble Court that the investigation agency 5\'.($§\ K V' ' against petitioner.
in Crime No.341/96, the HighGrounds Police to up into the case on the above FIR, will not submilt-its report' under section 173 Cr.P.C., without 1eaR2e"o.fp_tiie Hig'rt',C§u£t. This Court rejected prayer of the leave to file the charge sheet tinder 11:73 Cr.P.C., before VIII the invelstigation and quashed the complaint No.341/96) on 12.03.1997. by the sanie filed appeal before in SLP (Crl.) NO_1131/97 rejected by the Hon'ble Supreme" Court on 1.1998. "V Thereafter, filed an application before VIII ACMl\/lb-.courtl -_und'er...l~~'iVsection 340 Cr.P.C., against p_petit_io§'ner_iAi"or any offencev punishable under section 211 IPC. .AClVil}i/l"'*C_ourt issued notice to petitioner and he filed tnlelllisaine. However, VIII ACMM court by its 1 _ order' dated*"l23.01.2002 allowed the application of the respondeiit under section 340 Cr.P.C., and ordered to file . cornplaint for an offence punishable under section 211 IPC E N 1*» V' "C7 / 4; .
4. The operative portion of the order made by V"
Magistrate reads thus:~ "Petition U/s. 340 Cr.P.C., filedlby"the_ petition'e«r_ with a prayer to this court to ailcoxnplaint A the offence punishable U /5211 ll~'C;'agai:.ist respondent, is allowed." l Z V l V
5. The learned Magi-stratep,-ha.sp_:*. not referred xlto the provisions of section 340 195(1) Cr.P.C. When an offence l1"1'1§l€r the court shall not in wiiting of the court or as the court may authorise in In the._ insta'nt~.Vca._.se;_ the learned Magistrate has directed thel"respQIV1CV1_enf_bltoffile a complaint for an offence u__nderlsect..i.on 211 IPC. This order is contrary to propvisions-.o'f section 195 Cr.P.C.
6. 'respondent had initiated a complaint under section z3v4¢;C) Cr.P.C., based on the observations made by this ' :"¢lQurt_l:in Criminal Petition No.l532/1996 dated 12.03.1997, 1» / GK' 0' \*[)'\ w.\C(r/'L:
which is reported in ILR 1997 KAR 2595, the releyant observations read thus:- 9 9 it 9 "l2. .... .. All those allegations clearly give V' H a case of civil dispute and it cannotébe _said 9 the allegations can constitute anuofiecnclel alleged. To a question putto thelearned cou.nts'el' for the respondent No. 'tha't_:Vi"f" the accused had any assets"-.i:r1 the could have been attaac.hec_'rin_ and the complainant would V"_t.hvle'V__present criminal case__. ' 'that the intention {of force the petitioher eventhough there is dispute .th'e:gparties*;V Merely because, the accused _ not be able to honour their__ comn1itn:§:e'nltgs' various reasons, the creditolrs c'anniotAl*:aV'e"lthem up in criminal cases. »~'~lfl'heA'non--payn1ent. of debts may be for various A rea'sons'«..and if in all such cases, persons are, llgtohcriminal Courts then it is clearly the this Court after considering the allegations made by the complainant, to interfere insuch proceedings. . .
,...
This court in Criminal Petition No.l532/1996 has not held that it is expedient in the interest of justice to make an (j'\' ''~'*':'y\ '' 'péx.