Dismissed

Sri Shekhar G.M. v. Shreyas Hind Chit India Pvt. Ltd.

Karnataka HC17 Mar 2021CRL.P/1156/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka rejected a criminal petition filed under section 482 of Cr.P.C. to quash an order allowing the examination of a witness under section 311 Cr.P.C. The court held the trial judge had valid reasons to summon the surety for cash payment of 28 lakhs.

What did the court decide?

None. The criminal petition to quash the order allowing examination of witness Sunil Kumar was rejected.

Sri Shekhar G.M. Vs Shreyas Hind Chit India Pvt. Ltd. — Cheque Dishonour | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17^TH DAY OF MARCH 2021 BEFORE

¶2

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH

¶3

CRIMINAL PETITION No.1156 OF 2020

¶4

BETWEEN:

¶5

Sri.Shekhar.G.M. Son of Sri.Mariyaiah Aged about 38 years, Residing at No.04. Krishna Block, Police Quarters R.K.Nagar Bangalore-560 077.

¶6

...Petitioner

¶7

(By Sri.Prakash.K., Advocate)

¶8

AND:

¶9

Shreyas Hind Chit India Pvt. Ltd., Having its Registered Office at No.56/1, 3^rd Floor, 9^th Main, 5^th Block, Jayanagar, Bangalore-41 Rep.by its Authorised Signatory B.G.Pushpalatha

¶10

…Respondent

¶11

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., praying to quash/set aside the impugned order dated 06.12.2019 passed by the XXVIII Addl.C.M.M., Bengaluru in C.C.No.7383/2018 in respect of the interim application filed on 11.10.2019 by respondent/complainant u/s 311 of Cr.P.C.

¶12

¶13

This Criminal Petition coming on for admission this day, the Court made the following:

¶14

ORDER

¶15

This petition is filed under section 482 of Cr.P.C praying this court to quash the order passed by the learned Magistrate allowing the application under section 311 of Cr.P.C in C.C.No. 7383/2018 vide the order dated 6.12.2019.

¶16

The factual matrix of the case is that the respondent has filed the complaint under section 200 of Cr.P.C invoking the offence under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act against the petitioner herein. The trial court took the cognizance and thereafter recorded the evidence of the complainant and also the evidence of the accused. When the matter was posted for crossexamination of PW1, at this juncture complainant filed an application under section 311 of Cr.P.C praying the trial court to allow the complainant to examine one of the witness who was present at the time of making the payment of Rs.28,00,000/- as he is a necessary witness in

¶17

¶18

order to substantiate the case of the complainant. The said application was opposed by the petitioner herein and the learned Magistrate after considering both the averments made in the complaint and also the objections came to the conclusion that in order to throw the light in the matter in dispute examination of the witness is very much necessary and no hardship would be caused to the accused if the witness is examined. It is also mentioned in the order that the complainant has contended that an amount of Rs.28,00,000/- cash amount has been paid for which Sunil Kumar is a surety and his examination is necessary.

¶19

The counsel appearing for the petitioner would vehemently contend that the complainant instead of crossexamining PW1 made the application in order to cure the defects of the complainant and the trial Judge has failed to consider the detailed objections filed by him. Only on assumptions, the trial court has passed the order. Hence, it requires interference of this court.

¶20

¶21

Having heard the counsel for the petitioner and

¶22

on perusal of the order impugned and also the application and the objections produced before this court, it is clear that the complainant has contended that in order to prove the payment of Rs.28,00,000/-, the witness who is sought to be examined before the trial court was the surety for the said transaction and hence he has to be examined. The main contention of the petitioner herein in the objections statement was that the complainant’s evidence was closed on 20.6.2019 and in order to fill up the lacuna, the complainant is making efforts to examine the witness instead of cross-examining PW1. This court has considered the grounds urged in the petition and also the order passed by the Magistrate wherein in para 8 the trial court has discussed the purpose for which the witness has to be examined. Having taken note of the reasoning assigned by the trial Judge to examine the witness who was a surety for the payment of cash of Rs.28,00,000/-, I do not find any merit in this petition to quash the order impugned and only in order to substantiate the case of the

¶23

¶24

complainant, he has intended to examine the witness. There is no merit in this petition and accordingly it is rejected.

¶25

JUDGE

¶26

ckl

Sri Shekhar G.M. v. Shreyas Hind Chit India Pvt. Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Shekhar G.M. v. Shreyas Hind Chit India Pvt. Ltd.

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. Srinivas. v Vs State of Karnataka by

Sri K.S. Parveez Vs the State of Karnataka

Ramesh R, Vs State of Karnataka

Sri. Lala Naveen Kumar Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Machimada Gini Vs the State by

Dr Raghavendra K Vs State by Bangalore District Women'S Police Station