Allowed

The Managing Director, Raitar Sahakari Sakkare Karkhane Niyamit, v. Bibishan S/O Vaman Dongre

Karnataka HC8 Aug 2023CRL.P/100271/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench allowed a criminal petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash an order dismissing a Section 138 N.I. Act complaint. The court held the dismissal was erroneous as the complainant failed to execute NBW warrant, and granted one opportunity to comply.

What did the court decide?

Complaint in C.C. No.293/2014 restored to file; order dated 10.10.2019 quashed; petitioner granted one opportunity to comply with payment of fee of prosecution form.

The Managing Director, Raitar Sahakari Sakkare Karkhane… — Cheque Dishonour | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2023:KHC-D:8490 CRL.P No. 100271 of 2020

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

¶4

DATED THIS THE 8^TH DAY OF AUGUST 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA

¶7

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 100271 OF 2020

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, RAITAR SAHAKARI SAKKARE KARKHANE NIYAMIT, RANNANAGAR, TIMMAPUR, TQ-MUDHOL, DIST- BAGALKOTE, REP. BY ASHOK S/O VENKAPPA MORAB, AGE- 59 YEARS, OCC- MANAGING DIRECTOR, R/O- RANNANAGAR, TIMMAPUR, TQ- MUDHOL, DIST- BAGALKOTE.

¶10

… PETITIONER

¶11

(BY MRS. RUKMINI .M. PATIL FOR SRI. SRINIVAS .B. NAIK, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

VISHAL NINGAPPA PATTIHAL

¶14

Digitally signed by VISHAL NINGAPPA PATTIHAL Date: 2023.08.18 13:31:31 +0530

¶15

BIBISHAN S/O VAMAN DONGRE, AGE- MAJOR, OCC- CONTRACTOR, R/O- 245/1, CHINCHAVAN ROAD, PAVARLUM-VASTI WADAVANI, TQ- WADAVANI, DIST- BEED-431124, STATE MAHARASHTRA.

¶16

… RESPONDENT

¶17

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER OF DISMISSAL OF COMPLAINT DATED 10/10/2019 IN CC NO.293/2014 ON THE FILE OF PRL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, MUDHOL, REGISTERED FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 138 OF NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS ACT, AND RESTORE THE COMPLAINT ON ITS FILE.

¶18

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

2 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:8490 CRL.P No. 100271 of 2020

¶20

ORDER

¶21

The petitioner / complainant is before this Court

¶22

calling in question the order dated 10.10.2019, passed in C.C. No.293/2014 by which the learned Magistrate rejects the complaint for its default.

¶23

Heard the learned counsel Miss Rukmini M.Patil

¶24

for Shri Srinivas B.Naik appearing for the petitioner.

¶25

The petitioner is complainant and the

¶26

respondent is the accused. They to have a transaction. The transaction leads execution of a contract. The contract leads to issuance of certain cheques by the accused to the complainant. The cheques have been presented and the same is dishonoured on account of want of sufficient funds. The complainant then invokes Section 200 of the Cr.P.C. for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I. Act.

¶27

The matter was still at the stage of process. The

¶28

concerned Court noticing the fact that the petitioner has

¶29

3 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:8490 CRL.P No. 100271 of 2020

¶30

not taken any steps despite issuing NBW. PF is not furnished nor the Police are assisted for execution of the warrant, dismissed the complaint itself. It is this action of the concerned Court that is called in question in the subject petition.

¶31

Learned counsel Miss Rukmini M.Patil would vehemently contend that the concerned Court has rejected the complaint itself without following due procedure in law as is contemplated under Sections 82 & 83 of the Cr.P.C. The complaint could not have been dismissed, if the petitioner has not co-operated for execution of the NBW. She would therefore contend that the complaint be restored to file and the Court be directed to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.

¶32

The submission of Miss Rukmini M.Patil merits acceptance. The complaint is registered in the year 2012, though ten years have lapsed, the case is yet to progress and be taken to its logical conclusion. No doubt there has been default on the part of the petitioner in getting the

¶33

4 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:8490 CRL.P No. 100271 of 2020

¶34

NBW executed, as a non-bailable warrant to the respondent is issued since 2015 and the matter has been listed for PF on NBW. Though the action of the petitioner is on the face of it unpardonable in the interest of justice and in the light of the submission so made, the rejection of the complaint itself is erroneous. I deem it appropriate to grant one opportunity to the petitioner to do the needful as is directed by the Court and in the event the petitioner would fail to do the needful, the last straw of opportunity now granted would vanish and any further leave being sought on this kind would be rejected. For the aforesaid reasons, the following:

¶35

ORDER

¶36

(i) The petition is allowed.

¶37

(ii) The order dated 10.10.2019, passed in C.C. No.293/2014 by the learned Magistrate stands quashed.

¶38

(iii) The proceedings in C.C. No.293/2014 are restored to file.

¶39

¶40

NC: 2023:KHC-D:8490 CRL.P No. 100271 of 2020

¶41

(iv) The petitioner is granted one opportunity for compliance with the payment of PF or any other needful to be done before the concerned Court.

¶42

(v) The concerned Court shall regulate its procedure in directing the said needful action by the petitioner and bear in mind the observations made in the course of the order.

¶43

Sd/JUDGE

¶44

Vnp* / Ct:Bck

The Managing Director, Raitar Sahakari Sakkare Karkhane Niyamit, v. Bibishan S/O Vaman Dongre

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Managing Director, Raitar Sahakari Sakkare Karkhane Niyamit, v. Bibishan S/O Vaman Dongre

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

State of Karnataka Vs M/S Bbp Studio Virtual Bharath Pvt. Ltd.

Manikandan Kuttath Vs State of Karnataka

Jagath Prakash Nadda Vs State of Karnataka

Mrs Nagaveni W/O Sanjeev Naik Vs Sooraj Finanace Limited

Shrikanth S/O Venkappa Mikali Vs the State of Karnataka

Amregouda S/O Doddanagouda Patil Vs the State of Karnataka