Karnataka High Court
R K Surendra Babu vs C Ashoka on 17 December, 2009
Author: Jawad Rahim
Bench: Jawad Rahim
IN me HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT V.
DATED THIS THE 17?" DAY OF DECEi_V_1_BE_i§ éjooé 1% It
BEFORE
THE i-iOi\|'Bi_E MR.3Diu_sTIc:"---.AIAWADTRADIHIM i' K
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION I\iI,'>§12oii.ioVI%*i_2Vo"o9
BETWEEN:
sRI.R K SURENDRA BABU
S/O R KRISHi\iA1_AH ctéi'E'T*%"§i/ "
AGED ABOUT SQ-YEA.RSi ' A ._
R/O No.91/'6,_ IIi_A.GA"ArARA.PA_«.L».1V .
BA:\iOALORE:;_¥_.iS6oo»932;. PETITIONER
(av :_sRI. RA3i2:\)I,,:'A._IjVoC.A""iE')
ANDC A i ii i
Si?.E..C AsFiO}<A.I
si;<.O CHIKKA "ABBAIAH
. A ",ciGEiD"iABQUT 48"YEARs
A R/O,No.--I.,_3';--i NAGAWARAPALYA
__iEaA?i.iCfiA_l._O§<iE : 560093. RESPONDENT
{DY DAYALU ASSTS, AD\/s.,)
This Criminal Revision Petition is fiied under Section
read with Section 401 of Cr.P.C, 1973 praying to set
aside the order posting the 258 Cr.P.C. appiication for
1 Consideration aiong with main matter and etc.
This Petition coming on for orders this day, the Court
made the foiiowing:--
#43
ORDER
This revision is directed against the orcier'«oa~s'se'd__tt:v the learned XIV Addi. Chief i»ietropoi.it.a,A'ifi:vv.VViv--i%§:9i<strte't'e.,,Vb'"r._ Bangaiore in C.C.No.10786/O6:=_on:.ijg3._2Qd9.' 9 consider the appiication fiited-.__.unde"a<_Section"'2§8"of for stay of proceeding initiated again's--trh'i'n'i ifior offence under Section 138 o'iA-rhiegoifiviat}iet"i?n_st;ruments"Act.
2. The';'n.a}_*ter::_is 2is:ted"«.to'r'.i_'adndiifssion after notice to othevr"si'de_,di;V ' 3VI*.._4HeVard_iearnetzi counsei on both the sides. it is ndt in'~dispu.te~..as_ seen from the contentions urged by both » the compiaint flied by the respondent under Cr.P.C., prosecution was initiated against the pvetitioner to try him for offence under Section 138 of t " Negotiabie Instruments Act. During course of the triai, the tlfttrespondent complainant has tendered evidence as PW~1 T and evidence on his side is not yet compiete. At this juncture, the accused thought fit to bring to the notice of ;H7/ pa vs.) the Court that there has been further transactions between the parties which indicate that the impugned..~«c.h'g:n;uesgate unenforceable against him. In this regard,"h'e._ha.s'-referredV' to certain events which accruejtc bgn-ief-it_.:and:"foVrtVi'fy if defence that offence under _Secti'o-nl"138 wa"s.:n'ot ie4h'avii:e,. On that ground, the petitio'n,er accuisedrfiliedflflgapipiication under Section 258 trial court to take note of the subgseouqentvileve'nt"s'AA--l.it;.etvveen the parties and to stop" the-hproteeidirnigsb k"f:h'e.._l_e.arned judge, though received ap:'fpVl'ic_a't*io_'n, bviiitlhe impugned order dated 2.3.2"E}OV9" deferred._co--n:s'i'd.'e='ring the application till evidence isrecordetl w petitioner's grievance is that the learned .'rn;iagistrar;_e..r::was required to consider the appiication on its n'ierit*;which he has failed to do and thus it is a case of .VVf'a~i_.lure to exercise jurisdiction on the part of the learned magistrate. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent seriously submits that the provision under Section 258 is not applicable to the proceedings in the instant case as the gm?-/' proceedings are oh the basis of private compiair.-t filed under Section 200 Cr.P.C. By reading Section 258, he points out that it will be app'li_caii:i'ieVVoniy.v_tou"
the proceedings instituted oi,'hleVriév'ise 'pr=iva'i:e» compiaint. I am satisfied that thei__co'n_tentioV-n raised respondent counsel is fuily 'a'icc'eptabhle----in'th:'€} situation because the interp.r*et.ation'"NorVjSeVctii.on 258" is only that Section 258 deals with of __th'e.AA_'ih'ia'gistrate only to a case initiated"Qt:E1*ervv_ise§ t.h'ani..o'n'.j_a.Vprijvate complaint. The present" the basis of a private complaint, soVv."prolv'is_i:on.»-'of Section 258 may not be ap.pi.icabie1 Inffaci: in the scheme of Code of Crirhinai Proce"dure., separate provisions are incorporated like VVV.vSect,i:o=:i" to cater to such a situation to stop Ap.rocee~d:iin'.gAs and record acquittal of the accused if it is on n the D..r?iSis of a private compiaint. Therefore, the provision S Section 256 and Section 258 being a part of same Chapter and appiicabie to different situation iike case instituted on a private complaint and case instituted otherwise on a private cornpiaint, the application filed by §v0/ the accused was misconceived and was undoi..i.bted:i'y's-iriaybie to be rejected. The iearned magistratehhadci.t'of_*eV$<ai'hi'riev' this issue and pass orders. Iihfircieir'ismpu-igne'd~inydiicates 7 cieariy the rion--appiication,of min-di'-It is _r.e;.jrettab'i--4e"tba--tL the triai court, when such'°'aVpplicatio'n.s"are rnoiried, has deferred its conside'r'atior;i' yxih-:'c.i1.»V.'i'was requiivred to be considered.
5. 'a:_p'p_[ication under Section 258 . whicanis 'fiieid isifnot"'ma-inta'i"h'ab'i'e and does not survive for consideiiriatiionii ~:'i;eiai:-.nLed:':rnacjistrate is directed to proceed further on riieritvs in, tiiebiicase and enable the accused to put v§o'si=w;aird all suvcrivc-e.«r'itentions as is permissible in law. these observations, petition is disposed of. Sd/-
JUDGE RV