Dismissed

Tanveer Singh S/O. Gurudeep Singh v. Sunil Kakade S/O. Vittal Kakade

Karnataka HC7 Nov 2013CRL.P/10359/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka dismissed the criminal petition seeking to quash proceedings for cheque dishonour. The court held that delay in issuing statutory notice and the stage of trial excuse the respondent to raise delays as defense before the trial court.

What did the court decide?

Petition rejected; liberty reserved to urge grounds before the trial court.

Tanveer Singh S/O. Gurudeep Singh Vs Sunil Kakade S/O… — Cheque Dishonour | Karnataka HC (2013)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH

¶3

DATED THIS THE 7^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2013

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE Dr.JUSTICE JAWAD RAHIM

¶6

CRL.PETITION No.10359/2012

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

TANVEER SINGH S/O. GURUDEEP SINGH AGE: MAJOR, R/O. PROP: A-1, PUNJAB DABA, HIRIHAR ROAD, HOSPET, DIST: BELLARY.

¶9

... PETITIONER

¶10

(By Sri S Y SHIVALLI, ADV.)

¶11

AND

¶12

SUNIL KAKADE S/O. VITTAL KAKADE AGE: MAJOR, R/O. GANDHI COLONY, HOSPET, DIST: BELLARY.

¶13

... RESPONDENT

¶14

( RESPONDENT IS SERVED)

¶15

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S. 482 OF CR.P.C SEEKING TO CALL FOR RECORDS IN C.C NO.709/2011 (OLD C.C NO.1346/2009) (P.C NO.332/2009) ON THE FILE PRL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, HOSPET AND TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS INITIATED AGAINST THE PETITIONER IN C.C NO.709/2011 (OLD C.C NO.1346/2009) (P.C NO.332/2009) ON THE FILE PRL. CIVIL

¶16

¶17

JUDGE AND JMFC, HOSPET, AS BEING ARBITRARY, ERRONEOUS AND CONTRARY TO LAW.

¶18

This petition coming on for hearing this day, the court made the following

¶19

O R D E R

¶20

Petition is by the accused invoking Section 482, Cr.P.C. seeking to quash the proceedings against him filed by the respondent in C.C.709/11 (old C.C. 1346/09) for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

¶21

Learned counsel for the petitioner relying o the decision of this court in the case of Dr.GEETHA .vs.

¶22

VASANTHI S.SHETTY (ILR 2010 KAR 3669) submits that the proceeding initiated against the petitioner is illegal. He submits, after dishonour of the cheque, statutory notice under Section 138(b) of the Act has not been issued within the statutory period of 30 days. Notice is issued beyond 40 days and therefore prosecution is untenable.

¶23

Learned counsel does not dispute that the case before the jurisdictional magistrate is at the stage when

¶24

¶25

cross-examination of PW1 has to be done. Without proceeding with cross-examination, he has rushed to this court seeking to quash the proceeding. As could be seen, proceedings were initiated in 2009 and this petition under Section 482, Cr.P.C. is filed in the year 2012, after 3 years. Learned counsel submits there is misuse of the process of law. If that is the grievance, petitioner could have availed opportunity at the earliest. Invoking Section 482, Cr.P.C. at a stage when cross-examination of PW1 has to be done, is wholly impermissible.

¶26

As regards validity of statutory notice, it will be a good defence to the petitioner-accused which he can urge in the proceeding before the magistrate as permissible under Section 243 of the Cr.P.C. Being of this view, I find no merit.

¶27

In the result, the petition is rejected, however, reserving liberty to the petitioner to urge these grounds before the trial court.

¶28

SD/JUDGE

¶29

vgh*

Tanveer Singh S/O. Gurudeep Singh v. Sunil Kakade S/O. Vittal Kakade

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tanveer Singh S/O. Gurudeep Singh v. Sunil Kakade S/O. Vittal Kakade

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Chudappa S/O. Vasudev Ijari Vs State of Karnataka

Vincent Shanthakumar S/O. Late Joseph Vs Christina Geetha Rani

Dinakar Pandurang Magadum Vs the State of Karnataka

Anand Raghunath Mavlanakar Vs Ajitkumar Hanumantarao Deshpande

Sri S.K. Mohammed Sharef Vs Smt. Shaheen Ansari W/O. S.K. Mohammed Shareef

Kumar @ Chandrashekhar Vs the State of Karnataka