H L Vijayakumar vs Mr Dinesh D Jain on 19 March, 2010

[Cites 2, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

H L Vijayakumar vs Mr Dinesh D Jain on 19 March, 2010

Bench: A.N.Venugopala Gowda

   -. €:i=é.V._KIwfﬁéfiraveen Kumar & Associates, Advs.)

IN THE HIGH COURT or KARNATAKA AT 3A;§éAL§Q.IiEV#

DATED THIS THE 19*" DAY 0? MARCII, 2:QvI"0¢  --  AL

BEFORE " L L A V
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE  
CRIMINAL PETITI(3Vs\1 Nd.2..9fE§6/V2_{)(V§'3w"'  M
BETWEEN:  % A' E

1. H.L.Vi}'ayakumar,
Aged 32 years,    1 <9"
S/0. Sri,!~!,S;-!_.N;3raya_}%I,  ' 
Residiﬁ-g a§?"Amba P.rasa_d"',. V " 

  I    
Hassam  373 Z301."-.' ~  

2. Mr. '*S.Prad.éie.p;   
Aged" 32 years, ' __ "
S/o;=S_ré.. H.S_.S~:,.Ibbanna,
5 --"Sharad.arIIb'a", "
 next to SAé--v.a,___Ke»ndra Laxmipuram,
+#I"ass'"a~..rI -- 573 201.
V' "   PETITIONERS

Mr.' ilihesh D Jain,

'S/A0. Mr.DaE|ichhand M.JaEn,
 " -.P.r0prietor,
 M/s. Vardhaman Tele-com
7 Subhash Square,

Hassan -- 573 201.
 RESPONDENT

(By Smt. Kavitha H.C. & Sri.Prakash H.C. Advs.) This Criminal Petition is fiied under Se:c*t'ijo_n"vv482 Cr.P.C., praying to set aside/quash the enti_r;e"proc._eed.ings against the petitioners in C.C.No.889/2004--..'pendiVn'g"onfthde4_ fiie of II Addi. Civii Judge (JR.DN) & 3MFC--..,.._i-iassai1.. and to award the entire cost of the -p'e'titi.on--_<inciu_din_g the cost; ' incurred to prefer the above pe't_ition..s zf} ' This petition coming;V__o--r3. for"adimissioinAw~.t'ivi--istV,dtay,i the Court made the foliowing: ' ' ' Heard iearned coun_se'i'"onV and perused the petition pa;pe'i-sf hereivniivfiied a compiaint in PCR No.?'411/20'02VVoii_a<.the.V_:if'ii.e,..-of the JMFC-II Court at Hassan against it'he_V'peti'tior.~ers'and 2 others alieging commission of G,.ff;€Fi'CE pt,in'is'i"i'a'ioie under Section 138 of the Negotiable The said complaint has now been '' .r:egisterei<;i'i:as C.C.i\io.889/2004. In that complaint, it is aiiegeitl that the petitioners herein are the partners of firm Gateway Suvarna Arcade, B.M.Road, Hassan and towards discharge of their iiaioiiity, one of the partners of the firm viz., Mr.S.S.Ravishankar, issued a cheque bearing No.577804 dated 5.9.2002 for a sum of Rs.50,000/- Ex;

/, drawn on Vijaya Bank Ltd., i-iassan branch i_n"'fayQ~u..r_'V'ofV:_M[s Vardhaman Teiecom, which is a proprieta-rydconcerng "the'aW_V compiainant. The said cheque=,y'ha§/.ingT hot:4.beenVV'ifionau:9ed7 by the banker on which.it.4g_.yvasAV"dVrawn, statutory notice and in vievii'Va'oi'.V"Vno_n' the complaint was iodged, which ofanad the case is registered and proceiss.:issu.e.d_ accused persons. The petitioiner';.~s:a:re.V:see!¢;i"n:g proceedings in the said cas'e.ig.in?so;far as they are'i'concerned. 4' ' Adfuttsedv4v"i\i.o"f3_. in the aforesaid criminat case had tried -cri.y?iNto'.2%3'34/2007 in this Court seeking of "p'i'o.r:.e.eciings. The grounds urged in favour of ' La"q«.uas.hing~i.in'the said petition are exactiy the same as in the Winstantajpetivtion. This Court while aiiowing the said pet.itio:_n,V has observed as fotiows:

"4. Since the cheque in question has not been issued by the partnership firm and apart from that the petitioner has not signed the cheque nor responsibie for payment of the cheque in question, it cannot be said that prima facie case is made out as it /7 petitioners herein as weif as Smt.Sharada Bvai'al{rsi.shna, who was arraigned as accused No.3 in the coj'np£fauin_:t.V~1' ;_Se.id accused No.3 having approached this_.Co.Au':rtVVc.ontend'ing:°'-.__A that there is abuse of process;,AsinceAj:th'e> ch'equ--e'vvi;iias,not issued by her and was,*is_sued"'._on!v b§,r'V'%~acc_used .i\io_.":is. Mr.S.S.Ravishanl<ar in and the prosecution cannot of accused No.3 was ac_ceptedV.__tiy..V the criminal Dr0CeedEn.9§§'t"'é!'$ said order dated The petitioners herein standlgintheydi3'in:_v§iooiting as that of Smt.Sharada Baiakgrishlna./__"'é'.'e.,.'v' accused No.3 who had filed The respondent being a party to the

-Saitj.::V¢'ird"e%rf'V-and the order passed therein on 17.3.2008 ti«iavin'9' been allowed to become final, it is not open to the .. Varespo-ndent to contend that the prosecution of the two it '~.V_V"»pe'titioners shouid continue. Indisputedly, the aiiegations made against the petitioners are the same as one made in the complaint against Smt.Sharada Balakrishna, arraigned a . . i s accused No 3 /U, Following the decision rendered in Cr1.P.No.2834/2007'dated 17.3.2008 and forvv~.:t:ii._:e'-._\vV/ery reasons contained therein, this petition stands 'ai"Ioii§i-ed:"va_:nc£» the criminal case insofar as_e..t...hc_e tv~io""pet;itiVoners =.ai*eu concerned, shall stand quashed; i 3 It is made clear that ffriail."Cour-t_can""oi*'oce'ed with' the case insofar as aA.r;cusedi-!'.*of.f1-.is--»-conceirnvedﬂ iii»?/M ﬁsjiwa.

Eooéa

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court