The High Court of Karnataka disposed of multiple criminal petitions filed under Section 482 CrPC seeking quashing of proceedings under Section 138 NI Act. The Court held that questions regarding limitation and the existence of the company company are for the Trial Court to determine at the initial stage and thus dismissed the petitions.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
�
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 15th DAY OF APRIL 2014
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND BYRAREDDY
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.1438 OF 2014 C/W CRIMINAL PETITION NOS.754 TO 763 OF 2014, 1444 OF 2014, 1445 OF 2014, 1442 OF 2014, 1447 OF 2014, 1446 OF 2014, 1443 OF 2014, 1441 OF 2014, 1439 OF 2014 AND 1440 OF 2014
Between:
Ashish Jhunjhunwala S/o Ambika Prasad Jhunjhunwala Age: 52 years Managing Director Ramsarup Lohh Udyog Limited Hastings Chamber 1st and 2nd Floor, 7C Kiran Shankar Roy Road Kolkata – 700 001 … Petitioner in Crl.P.No.1438/2014
�
Hastings Chamber 1st and 2nd Floor, 7C Kiran Shankar Roy Road Kolkata – 700 001 … Petitioners in Crl.P.Nos.754-763/2014
Ashish Jhunjhunwala S/o Ambika Prasad Jhunjhunwala Age: 52 years Managing Director Ramsarup Lohh Udyog Limited Hastings Chamber 1st and 2nd Floor, 7C Kiran Shankar Roy Road Kolkata – 700 001 …
… Petitioner in Crl.P.Nos.1444-1445/14 1442/14, 1447/14, 1446/14 1443/14, 1441/14, 1439/14 1440/14
(By Sri.C.R.Raghavendra Reddy, Adv.)
And:
ABB Limited A Company under the Companies Act, 1956 Having its regd. office at 2nd Floor, East Wing Khanija Bhavan 49, Race Course Road Bangalore – 560 001 Rep. by its Power of Attorney Holder Mr.Dinchu Oommen … Common Respondent
(By Sri.Keerti Kumar D.Naik, Adv.) - - -
�
These Criminal Petitions are filed under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C, praying to quash the entire proceedings as against these petitioners in C.C.Nos.27188/2012, 27188/2012, 27189/2012, 27190/2012, 27191/2012, 27192/2012, 27193/2012, 27194/2012, 27195/2012, 27196/2012, 27197/2012, 27194/2012, 27195/2012, 27192/2012, 27197/2012, 27196/2012, 27193/2012, 27191/2012, 27189/2012 and 27190/2012, respectively pending on the file of XIV A.C.M.M., Bangalore.
These Petitions coming on for Admission this day, the Court made the following:-
O R D E R
These petitions are heard and they are disposed of by this
common order having regard to the identical questions involved in
the same.
that the complaint has been brought against the Managing Director and in the name of a Company which is not in existence. These are questions to be addressed by the Trial Court at the initial stage and if the same has passed muster, it is for the petitioners to enlighten
�
the Court as to the circumstances claimed. The Trial Court is in a better position to address these two issues. Therefore, with liberty to the petitioners to urge the contentions as regards the limitation and the maintainability of the complaint, on the ground that the Company on whose behalf the Cheque had been issued, was not made a party, the petitions are disposed of. The Trial Court to examine these contentions at the preliminary stage in order save time and effort if the complaint should fail on those grounds alone. With that observation, petitions stand disposed of. Incidentally, the learned counsel for the respondent would point out that insofar as the question of limitation is concerned, the Trial Court has already condoned the delay. If that be so, the respondent would have the advantage as to the contention of the complaint being barred by time and which may not survive for consideration. It is again for the petitioners to satisfy the Court below that it could not be
condoned.
�
and ailing and therefore, seeks that there be a blanket order exempting him from appearing before the Court below. This is not to be urged before this Court. It is for the petitioner to make appropriate applications before the Court below on each date of hearing, which the Trial Court, in its discretion, would consider.
1439/2014 and 1440/2014 does not survive for consideration and is accordingly disposed of.
Sd/JUDGE
RV
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should quash criminal proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 based on allegations of limitation and non-existence of the issuing company?
Whether the age and health of the Managing Director accused precludes him from facing trial before the Trial Court?
Whether a stay application is maintainable pending the disposal of the quashing petitions?
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Ashish Jhunjhunwala
Ramsarup Lohh Udyog Limited
ABB Limited
Anand Byrareddy
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
