Disposed

Sri Srinivas Kesineni v. M/S Religare

Karnataka HC23 Jan 2017CRL.P/689/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners sought quashing of a non-bailable warrant issued against a sitting MP in a cheque dishonour case. The court directed the MP to seek recall of the warrant and requested the lower court to grant exemption from future appearances unless strictly necessary, noting the members of Parliament status.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to appear forthwith and seek recall of non-bailable warrant. Lower court directed to consider exemption from appearance on further dates unless strictly necessary. Petition dispose

Sri Srinivas Kesineni Vs M/S Religare — Cheque Dishonour | Karnataka HC (2017)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 23^RD DAY OF JANUARY 2017

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND BYRAREDDY

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION No.689 OF 2017

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

Sri. Srinivas Kesineni, S/o. Sri. Ramaswamy Kesineni, Aged about 51 years, Survey No.329, Batchupally Road, Nizampet, Hyderabad-500 090.

¶9

Kesineni Tours and Travels, Represented by its Proprietor Sri. Srinivas Kesineni, Having its office at Survey No.329, Batchupally Road, Nizampet, Hyderabad-500 090.

¶10

Kesineni Cargo Carriers Pvt. Ltd., Represented by its Managing Director Smt. Pavani Kesineni, Having its office at

¶11

¶12

No.201, Vasantha Classic, Emerald Garden, Madhapur, Hyderabad-500 081.

¶13

Smt. Pavani K, W/o. Sri. Srinivas Kesineni, Aged about 45 years, House No.4, P.No.555/A, Room No.27, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad-500 033. …PETITIONERS

¶14

(By S. Sreevatsa, Senior Advocate for Shri Nikhil K., Advocate)

¶15

AND:

¶16

M/s. Religare Finvest Ltd., No.1314, 1^st and 2^nd Floor, Double Road, HAL 2^nd Stage, Next to KHT Motors, Indiranagar, Bangalore-560 038. …RESPONDENT

¶17

(Notice to respondent is dispensed with) *****

¶18

This Criminal Petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, praying to quash the order dated 11.01.2017 vide Annexure-A passed by the XIV ACMM, Bangalore, in C.C.No.53986/2016 and to direct the petitioner No.1 to Petitioner No.4 before the XIV ACMM, Bangalore, in C.C.No.53986/2016 and petitioners to appear through their Advocate unless directed to be present for recording of the statement under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. and for judgment.

¶19

¶20

This Criminal Petition coming on for Admission this day, the court made the following:

¶21

O R D E R

¶22

Having regard to the circumstances of the case, notice to

¶23

the respondent – complainant is dispensed with and the petition

¶24

is addressed.

¶25

The petitioner No.1 is arrayed as Accused No.1, since

¶26

he is the signatory to the cheque in question for an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments

¶27

Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the NI Act’, for brevity).

¶28

It transpires that the petitioner is a sitting member of the Parliament and on the date of hearing to which the case was posted, his presence was not really necessary and therefore, the counsel appearing for Petitioner No.1 had made an application seeking exemption from his appearance. The court below however, had taken exception to the absence of the petitioner and has rejected the application seeking exemption and has

¶29

¶30

directed issuance of a non-bailable warrant. It is in this background that the petitioner is before this court.

¶31

It is pleaded by the learned Senior Advocate Shri S.

¶32

Sreevatsa appearing for the counsel for the petitioner that the proceedings are for an offence punishable under Section 138 of the NI Act where the presence of the accused may not be necessary on every date of hearing. The court below however, has taken a strict view of the requirement of the petitioner’s presence, notwithstanding the fact that he is a sitting member of

¶33

the Parliament. Being a sitting member, he may not be in a position to travel from New Delhi to Bangalore on every date of hearing, as he would be otherwise engaged in matters of public importance and hence, the application for exemption ought to have been considered and he should have been granted exemption, unless his presence before the court was absolutely necessary.

¶34

¶35

This the learned counsel would submit is not sought as a concession but as a matter of necessity, as the petitioner is indeed a public servant engaged in duties of some public importance and therefore, makes the request that there be an appropriate direction to the court below.

¶36

However, since the court below has chosen to issue a non-bailable warrant, it would be appropriate for the petitioner to forthwith appear before the court below and seek that the warrant be recalled. Insofar as the further dates of hearing are concerned, the court below is requested to consider the appropriate stage at which the petitioner’s presence is absolutely necessary and otherwise grant exemption for his appearance if proper reasons are shown for such exemption, since the law does provide for such exemption being granted. Accordingly, the petition stands disposed of.

¶37

It is also pointed out that in the array of parties, the complainant has chosen to name the first petitioner and the

¶38

¶39

second petitioner as being distinct persons, whereas he happens to be the Proprietor of the second petitioner and therefore, they

¶40

are construed as one and the same.

¶41

I.A.1/2017 is disposed of as a consequence.

¶42

Sd/-

¶43

JUDGE

¶44

Sri Srinivas Kesineni v. M/S Religare

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Srinivas Kesineni v. M/S Religare

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

Sri. Thippeswamy C.G Vs Sri. Shivaswamy N

Mukkateera Sampath Vs the State of Karnataka

Mr Veerabadraiah H C Vs the State by Byatarayanapura P S

Smt. Meenakshi Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Vasunathan Vs the Registrar General

S. R. Subramanian Vs the State of Karnataka