Allowed

M/S Goutham Jewellers v. Sri K R Ashwathnarayan

Karnataka HC29 Nov 2021CRL.P/1879/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed criminal petitions to set aside a Magistrate's order dismissing an application to correct wrongly mentioned case numbers in duplicate fraud affidavits, permitting the petitioner to effect the necessary formal amendments.

What did the court decide?

The impugned orders of the Magistrate and revisional court were set aside; the petitioner was permitted to correct the case numbers in the affidavits.

M/S Goutham Jewellers Vs Sri K R… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 29^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2021

¶2

BEFORE

¶3

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR

¶4

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.1879 OF 2020 C/W CRIMINAL PETITION NO.1881 OF 2020

¶5

In Crl.P.No.1879/2020

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

M/s. Goutham Jewellers, No.245/1, R.T.Street, Bengaluru-560053. Represented by its Proprietor, Sri M.Goutham Chand S/o Late Mothilal, Aged about 57 years,

¶8

…Petitioner (By Sri Tomy Sebastian, Senior Counsel for Smt. Reny Sebastian, Advocate)

¶9

AND:

¶10

Sri K.R.Ashwathnarayan, S/o Rathnam Gupta, Major No.82-83, Parthasarathy Complex, C.T.Street, Bengaluru-560002.

¶11

…Respondent

¶12

(By Sri S.Rangaiah Chetty, Advocate for Sri S.V.Shastri, Advocate)

¶13

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., praying to set aside the order dated 11.12.2017 passed in C.C.No.21332/2016 on the file of the XIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate,

¶14

:: 2 ::

¶15

Bengaluru and permit the petitioner to adduce fresh evidence by way of filing fresh affidavit evidence by mentioning the correct case number in the cause title of the affidavit and to exhibit document which are already exhibited.

¶16

In Crl.P.No.1881/2020

¶17

BETWEEN:

¶18

M/s. Goutham Jewellers, No.245/1, R.T.Street, Bengaluru-560053. Represented by its Proprietor, Sri M.Goutham Chand S/o Late Mothilal, Aged about 57 years,

¶19

…Petitioner

¶20

(By Sri Tomy Sebastian, Senior Counsel for Smt. Reny Sebastian, Advocate)

¶21

AND:

¶22

Sri K.R.Ashwathnarayan, S/o Rathnam Gupta, Major No.82-83, Parthasarathy Complex, C.T.Street, Bengaluru-560002.

¶23

…Respondent (By Sri S.Rangaiah Chetty, Advocate for Sri S.V.Shastri, Advocate)

¶24

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., praying to set aside the order dated 11.12.2017 passed in C.C.No.21333/2016 on the file of the XIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru and permit the petitioner to adduce fresh evidence by way of filing fresh affidavit evidence by

¶25

:: 3 ::

¶26

mentioning the correct case number in the cause title of the affidavit and to exhibit document which are already exhibited.

¶27

These Criminal Petitions coming on for admission through video conferencing this day, the Court made the following:

¶28

ORDER

¶29

These two petitions are disposed of by a

¶30

common order.

¶31

Heard Sri Tomy Sebastian, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner and Sri S.Rangaiah Chetty, learned counsel for the

¶32

respondent in both the petitions.

¶33

The facts are simple. The petitioner has initiated two proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, which are registered as C.C.No.21332/2016 and C.C.No.21333/2016. While filing the affidavits in both the cases, in lieu of examination in chief, the case numbers were wrongly mentioned. In the affidavits filed in

¶34

:: 4 ::

¶35

C.C.No.21332/2016, the case number is mentioned

¶36

as C.C.No.21333/2016 and vice-versa.

¶37

The petitioner having noticed the said

¶38

mistake, made applications in both the cases seeking permission to withdraw the affidavits and to file fresh affidavits. Learned Magistrate by his order dated 11.12.2017, dismissed the applications in both the cases. Thereafter, it appears that the petitioner approached the Sessions Court by filing revision petitions and they too were dismissed finding that the revision petitions were not maintainable. Hence the petitioner has approached this Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., for setting aside the said order of the Magistrate.

¶39

Sri Tomy Sebastian, learned Senior

¶40

Counsel submits that it is enough if the petitioner is permitted to effect correction of the case numbers in the affidavits.

¶41

:: 5 ::

¶42

Sri S.Rangaiah Chetty, learned counsel for the respondent submits that the Magistrate passed the order on 11.12.2017 and the revision petitions were dismissed on 04.01.2020, but the petitioner approached this Court on 03.02.2020. There is inordinate delay and the petitioner ought to have made applications under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.

¶43

The argument of the respondent’s counsel cannot be accepted, because, these are the petitions under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., I do not think that Limitation Act prescribes any time limit in making an application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. However, it does not mean that a petition filed with inordinate delay can be entertained. In this case, the petitioner’s request is for effecting correction of the case numbers wrongly typed in the affidavits. It has nothing to do with the merits of the case. In fact, the Magistrate himself could

¶44

:: 6 ::

¶45

have moulded the relief, while entertaining the applications made by the petitioner. It is clearly held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of

¶46

S.R.SUKUMAR VS. SUNAAD RAGHURAM (CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.844/2015) , that if the amendment relates to a simple infirmity which is curable by means of formal amendment, such amendments may be granted by the Magistrate himself. Since what is sought in these two petitions is to effect correction of the case number in the affidavits filed in lieu of examination in chief, the petitioner may be permitted to effect those amendments. If these amendments are permitted, the interest of the respondent will not be prejudiced in any way. In this view, the following:

¶47

ORDER

¶48

Both the petitions, Crl.P. No.1879/2020 and Crl.P.No.1881/2020 are allowed.

¶49

:: 7 ::

¶50

The order dated 11.12.2017 passed in C.C.No.21332/2016 and C.C.No.21333/2016 by the learned XIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru, and the order dated 04.01.2020 in Crl.RP.No.176/2018 and Crl.RP.No.177/2018 by the LXVIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (CCH-69)) are set-aside.

¶51

The petitioner is permitted to effect correction of the case numbers in the affidavits that he has filed in both the cases.

¶52

Sd/JUDGE

¶53

Kmv/-

M/S Goutham Jewellers v. Sri K R Ashwathnarayan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Goutham Jewellers v. Sri K R Ashwathnarayan

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

J. Somashekar Vs State of Karnataka

Ananda S Vs State by Pandavapura Ps

V R Mohankumar Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Ashwin Kumar Vs the Principal Secretary

Kumar M Yadahalli Vs State of Karnataka

Sri. B L Ravindranath Vs State of Karnataka