Dismissed

State of Karnataka v. Mohan Kumar @ Ananda

Karnataka HC8 Mar 2012CRL.P/305/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The single judge dismissed the Criminal Petition filed under Section 482 CrPC for setting aside an order in C.C.No.27973/2007. The Court held that the petition was non-maintainable due to the petitioner's failure to comply with the Court's office objection regarding a representation clause and the lack of alternative remedies.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed on account of non-compliance of office objections and non-maintainability.

State of Karnataka Vs Mohan Kumar @ Ananda — Cheque Dishonour | Karnataka HC (2012)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

¶3

DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF MARCH, 2013

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE DR.JUSTICE K. BHAKTHAVATSALA

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.3015 OF 2012

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

M/S SREE GOKULAM CHITS & FINANCE CO. (P) LTD HAVING ITS REGISTERED CORPORATE OFFICE AT: "SREE GOKULAM TOWERS" NO.66, ARCOT ROAD KODAMBAKKAM, CHENNAI – 600 024 AND HAVING ITS BRANCH OFFICE AT: REAR BLOCK, 1ST FLOOR PUNJAB MANSION NO.23, EBRAHIM SAHIB STREET SHIVAJINAGAR BANGALORE – 560 003 REP BY ITS MANAGER AND GPA HOLDER, SRI.SAJI M.C. ...PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI: H K SINGH, ADVOCATE FOR SINGH & RANI ASSOCIATES, ADVOCATES)

¶10

AND:

¶11

SMT NALINE S NO.114, COLES ROAD FRAZER TOWN BANGALORE – 560 005. ...RESPONDENT

¶12

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 13.3.2012 IN C.C.NO.27973/2007 PASSED BY THE XIV ACMM, BANGALORE, AND TO RESTORE THE CASE.

¶13

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

¶15

O R D E R

¶16

Office objection is with regard to Sl.No.9 of the Memo dated 2.12.2011 issued by the High Court. According to Sl.No.9 of the Memo, in all Criminal Petitions, there shall be a mention that no other case has been filed or pending before the High Court or any other Court seeking the relief sought in the petition.

¶17

On 3.1.2013, two weeks' time was granted to comply with office objection. On 21.1.2013, two more weeks' time was granted to comply with office objection. On 7.2.2013, none appeared, however, two weeks' time was granted to do the needful, finally. Again on 26.2.2013, non appeared, however, a weeks' time was granted to do the needful. Even today, there is no representation for the petitioner.

¶18

Perused the memorandum of petition. Petitioner is the complainant before the trial Court in C.C.No.27973/2007. He filed a private complaint against the respondent under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. praying to

¶19

¶20

punish the respondent-accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. On 13.3.2012, complaint was dismissed for want of taking steps. This is impugned in this petition.

¶21

As against the impugned order, petitioner has got remedy elsewhere. Apart from that there is no representation for the petitioner. '

¶22

Petition is dismissed on account of non-compliance of office objections and maintainability.

¶23

Sd/JUDGE

¶24

State of Karnataka v. Mohan Kumar @ Ananda

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State of Karnataka v. Mohan Kumar @ Ananda

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

C Swetha Deeraj Vs Nirmala Kamath

Smt Bibijaan Vs Mr Inayath

Smt Kamalamma Vs Sri Hanumanthappa

Smt Ragini Vallabhaneni, M.S., (U S a ) Vs State of Karnataka

Smt Manorama Jayakumar Vs State of Karnataka

K Sivaprakasam Vs M/S Verve Investment & Finance Pvt. Ltd.