Allowed

Sri Arthur James Lobo @ a J Lobo v. Sri Mujeebur Rehaman

Karnataka HC14 Jul 2023CRL.P/2979/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka allowed a criminal petition under Section 482 CrPC seeking quashing of Sections 138 NI Act proceedings. Ruling that the petitioner retired from the company in 1994 and had no prior management involvement, the court quashed the proceedings against him as the offence was not maintainable.

What did the court decide?

The pending proceedings in C.C.No.560/2003 before the Addl. Civil Judge and JMFC, Kundapura were quashed insofar as they concerned the petitioner.

Sri Arthur James Lobo @ a J Lobo Vs Sri Mujeebur Rehaman — Cheque Dishonour | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

NC: 2023:KHC:24530 CRL.P No. 2979 of 2018

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 14^TH DAY OF JULY, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 2979 OF 2018

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI. ARTHUR JAMES LOBO @ A. J. LOBO, AGED ABOUT 82 YEARS, S/O LATE ANTHONY LOBO, PRESENTLY R/O NO.5, BERLIE STREET, LANGFORD TOWN, BENGALURU - 560 025.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. VENKATESH SOMAREDDI., ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

SRI. MUJEEBUR REHAMAN, Digitally signed by S/O (NOT KNOWN), LAKSHMINARAYANN AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, Location: High R/O NEAR ACHARYA MEDICALS, Court of Karnataka CHURCH ROAD, GANGOLLI, UDUPI DISTRICT - 576 216.

¶13

…RESPONDENT

¶14

(RESPONDENT SERVED, BUT UNREPRESENTED)

¶15

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.560/2003 (ARISING OUT OF PCR NO.153/2001) ON THE FILE OF ADDITIONAL CIVIL

¶16

¶17

NC: 2023:KHC:24530 CRL.P No. 2979 of 2018

¶18

JUDGE AND JMFC, KUNDAPURA IN SO FAR AS THE PETITIONER IS CONCERNED.

¶19

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

¶20

ORDER

¶21

The captioned petition is filed by accused No.3 seeking quashing of the proceedings in C.C.No.560/2003 pending on the file of Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Kundapura for the offences punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short, 'N.I.Act').

¶22

The respondent/complainant has filed a complaint under Section 138 of N.I.Act alleging that a company issued a cheque on 17.01.2001 for a sum of Rs.25,000/- and on presentation, the same was returned with an endorsement dishonoured. After registering a private complaint, complainant's sworn statement was recorded. Pursuant to the recording of the sworn statement, the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance and summons was issued to accused No.1/company

¶23

3 - NC: 2023:KHC:24530 CRL.P No. 2979 of 2018

¶24

represented by one of its directors, who has issued a cheque. It appears that after the learned Magistrate took cognizance, the complainant has roped in the present petitioner on the premise that he is one of the directors. Based on an impleading application, the petitioner was impleaded on 17.12.2015 and a summons was issued.

¶25

The short point that requires consideration at

¶26

the hands of this Court is as to whether, even if the allegations are accepted in its entirety, no offence is made out against the petitioner, who admittedly retired from the company on 25.08.1994. A copy of Form No.22 is placed on record. On perusal of the same, I would find that the petitioner herein retired from the company on 25.08.1994. If he retired in 1994, the proceedings for the offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I.Act are not maintainable against the petitioner herein. Therefore, I am of the view that it is a fit case to quash the proceedings insofar as the petitioner is concerned. If proceedings are not quashed, the petitioner, who had retired from the

¶27

4 - NC: 2023:KHC:24530 CRL.P No. 2979 of 2018

¶28

company and had no concern with the management and affairs of accused No.1/company has to go through a long ordeal of a criminal trial, which would amount to abuse of process. Therefore, to meet the ends of justice, I pass the following:

¶29

ORDER

¶30

i. The criminal petition is allowed.

¶31

ii. The proceedings pending in C.C.No.560/2003 pending on the file of Addl. Civil Judge and JMFC, Kundapura are hereby quashed.

¶32

Sd/JUDGE

¶33

HDK CT:STK

Sri Arthur James Lobo @ a J Lobo v. Sri Mujeebur Rehaman

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Arthur James Lobo @ a J Lobo v. Sri Mujeebur Rehaman

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

Smt Narayanamma Vs the Assistant Commissioner

Smt Yalaveni Vs the State of Karnataka

M/S Priyanka Gehlot Vs M/S Nxtgen Data Center

Mr Vijayakumar Vs the Station House Officer

Mr Syed Ali Sheriff Shahul Hameed Vs M/S Sindhu Cargo Services Pvt. Ltd.

Mr Syed Ali Sheriff Shahul Hameed Vs M/S Sindhu Cargo Services Pvt. Ltd.