Karnataka High Court
N A Shetty vs Chandra Mohana Reddy on 18 March, 2008
Author: N.Ananda
Bench: N.Ananda
IN THE HIGH coum oar KARNATAKA AT BA3:é5;.o¥:%$[%
T _ ,1" 1:
D. .TE._ H18 TH
DAY OF VA % "
Ii: nnfhi
ad: '.151'
'ED
i-i0N'BL':':". h1R,JUS'?}{3E'~E%'. ANPQPEEA = V' K
CRIMTIVAL P'1*r*W*jr"%Ivo.369a¢g:r::»-v'
N.A.Shctty
.1............:l 011. ¢..4'.~.., '
Si 0. Lfiifi Sfiu. mauua tiiiI3r.§.J'
' Aged about 52=y_e'a:rs
I*io.5('J3. "
Near Vcn;1r;ata1?safi3;ai1;a;sW§a.1:i3r.fl'e§ni;§lc, '
I{o1*amangagta».. ..
...Petitioner
my ' '
Sip. Raddy
% é Agedtaboug 52 years
' j_ -
' District. Respondent
':.::£ \
-9 ._;:-:.é3;;9;;ir:sh_wn_ua.Lha Ruddy, Advocate) "T""J " V 'E'hia Criminal wtiticn is filed. under seetlcn 432 Gr,P.G., AA praying to quash the entire proceedings initiated against petitioner " . for an Gffr'3.|'1-€56 punishable under smien 138 of !\I.L.A.ct, in V'C.C.No.l2/2001, on the file of the Pr1.Civi1 Judge (Jr.Dn.) 85 V' llI':\I1 n_..I-..I 0.. .9 .. 3 Jmr L», nuunau un utu.
This petitifm "n"rng 'ii for fir" h°'*i*%ng this d-=", the Court made the following:
I-.3 egnmn I-IV-In V The petitioner arrayed as aceused "\'I".:*.s_.»',: --.o.%-'.f'_:l1; V. p pending trial' for an offence puma' l the Negotiable lnstmments Act, 1881 [for shaitfittie L. the file of Prl.Civi1 Judge (M3,; gs. at Agmkai, has filed this petition to 'the1einl it
2. The facts of petition am as follows:«« ~ The under section 200 an oifenoe punishable under lseotiou "1.'l33.:'of Act. It is alleged, petitioner had issued, at lndated 15.06.1998, for a sum of to menu d.-ut, drawn on Bank of
--i--~.----«--l 1; ~~ .. .. rs . ,0' D 1 aux: Rllflll. Bxwnuhg u-uu cufl: 0 ;
1"e.spojm'ie1i~t presented the cheque and cheque was up The iespondent issued statutory notice to petitioner, demanding payment of cheque amount, for which there was no response. Therefore. Iespondent filed a complaint in P.C.R.No.53/98. During pendency of PCR rvc..J«v~«(>v»~4~~ ta-I ..e.53}..8, mew"-'en! m-p....._nt.... t..- - .-_,,,m cheque was di'h"nrrrred ant': issueci setf:':aid__ .daate&« .. 1' 17.11.1998 and 111ecl'"" ' another eoirupls,i11i§ under Cr. 9.0.. in PCR No.67/98. The _Iespidn_¢v.;1ent ail;-as aumigmiass _ for dismissal of earlier iiiseuzo was accepted by trial
3. I have "fer petitioner. 'Tile learned Cozaizseiljifer Iespengleni is "4 -v=i*~=.i'='==r'-i~"..,~£r'.r.4:"! ms - ¢.3,FP.n3m Vz_',1'¢:_zy Kunuir iiirsé. }'asi'qi'(zIV ::a:s(1g.{zi(fi."uT:' :37 u r, : r u Pa .4 sec 417,'has heici:--¥~, _ _ _ 'AL' lfisagetlable Instruments Act. 1881- _ Eeetiens 138 is 1-'fifni-':5ii"eu"*ur ef enuqui -- 1 actieu to file mmnhint 0 n pamaht despite issue of the notice. held. arises "but once - Another cause of action would not on repeated dishonour on plesentation of saxne cheque again subsequent to non-payment after the fixst noiiee --Payee is nec us 1 at the ch-eque nan'-,,...
if nlidifv nerinr]
-Ira.
_1 ...=.'.'{.'~mT .33: 5 » R .
......... 1+».-J .._...
but nnnn nnH ling IIPPTI 'E531 not received within 15 days of the notice, payee has to avail: "the. «very A action arising thereupon and fi1e'*&§e Tr ' Dishonour of cheque Voizteaclr t a fresh right to pIe5er1t"*.1 again ammgp m .... ..
rise to a fresh C£1lr.€c_ ofac§tio1i'-.--fCi)zlrp1air1t ha to be filed within one the day which the peI'i«»d.».9f e;'day_-_: time «into:-}'&$t' receipt of the Ins" vt._I1i'C.P_fiTi-33 53* drawer'; expires - CJ'""'"1a.'r *-wind of its validity, btstfh 11!, it d.rre.%3.r1.r:gt.':g_1' e the perusal of complaint would reveal i11.Vq_'1:e_.-§tio11'V'\ara:s. dated 15.06.1998. The complaint 4 V ' . V',_1;3._3 . wh .n Jrris cheque was presented. However, a para 4 of complaint, it is stated after iseuancc of AA iegal vrrotiee, complainant requested the accused to repay a._._I_111t.. _he assured he would make F---*-*--*-'-=-"+-= 0" such -=-=s'""=="'- nnmpl.-:.inn t @- ha nuunmflhu-'l C'lnnue' but mug éin nnennnfl fnr V The endorsement issuefi by Bank is 11a.'~11.1::r:ro; 2 thereafter legal notice was issued__ on-.1?) Ii, ewe find narration of facts in complaint'etota11y--:1;§:t§:tc;1.'*rheV _ dates are rather confusing. without oonsiderillg all noticing dismissal of eaflier No.53/98, has issued aummof.-:3 accused".
V "" *ot,],QRDER to accepted. The impugned order is_ ; set, asi.Vdc':._ 'I'tae ttrnzttter is Iemanded to the Ieoonaider c_.:o_1np1aj11t fmm the stage of its // Sal;
E E a E vs l-'I-ua I':rI'1t nfa nu:-urn rung innflaa 119 .511 ant'! i_'[I_