Partly allowed

Sri Jayanaik v. Sri Srinivasa

Karnataka HC6 Mar 2024CRL.P/5825/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. challenging an order rejecting recall of a witness in a cheque dishonour case. The petitioner, who delayed proceedings with ~20 adjournments, was granted one last opportunity to cross-examine PW.1 only upon payment of Rs.20,000.

What did the court decide?

Quashed impugned order subject to payment of Rs.20,000 to respondent; petitioner directed to cross-examine witness on next date contingent upon cost payment.

Sri Jayanaik Vs Sri Srinivasa — Cheque Dishonour | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:9447 CRL.P No. 5825 of 2017

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 6^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 5825 OF 2017

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SRI. JAYANAIK, S/O REVANAIK, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, R/AT NO.90, 5TH CROSS, PATEL MUNIYAPPA LAYOUT, V. NAGENAHALLI, R.T. NAGAR POST, BANGALORE - 560 032.

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI. GIRISHA C.M., ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

Digitally signed by NARAYANAPPA LAKSHMAMMA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

SRI. SRINIVASA, S/O LATE CHIKKANNAIAH, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, R/AT NO.557, OLD POLICE STATION ROAD, KADUGONDANAHALLI, ARABIC COLLEGE POST, BANGALORE - 560 045.

¶13

…RESPONDENT

¶14

(BY SRI. S. KUMAR AND SRI. K.T. RAJIV, ADVOCATES)

¶15

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ORDER OR DIRECTION

¶16

¶17

NC: 2024:KHC:9447 CRL.P No. 5825 of 2017

¶18

QUASHING THE ORDER DATED 24.06.2017 PASSED ON I.A. FILED U/S 311 OF CR.P.C. IN C.C.NO.307/2015 ON THE FILE OF XX ADDL.C.M.M., BANGALORE VIDE ANNEXURE-A.

¶19

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

¶20

ORDER

¶21

Petitioner is before this Court seeking for the following

¶22

relief:

¶23

" a) Quash the Order dated 24.06.2017 passed on IA filed under Section 311 of CrPC in CC No.307/2015 on the file of Hon'ble Court of XX Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Bengaluru, vide Annexure 'B'. "

¶24

Respondent has filed a private complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C. read with Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act alleging that the cheque issued by the petitioner had been dishonored for "insufficiency of funds". Respondent led evidence of CW.1 on 17.11.2015 and matter was posted for cross examination. Thereafter the petitioner did not cross examine CW1 though matter was posted on four occasions.

¶25

On 21.3.2016 cross examination of PW.1 was taken as

¶26

¶27

NC: 2024:KHC:9447 CRL.P No. 5825 of 2017

¶28

"Nil" and the matter was posted for statement of the accused on 13.4.2016. On 1.4.2016 when application was filed for recall of PW.1 for cross examination, it came to be allowed by imposing cost of Rs.400/- and matter adjourned for cross examination of PW.1 on 6.5.2016, when an adjournment was sought for. Again adjournments were sought for on the next dates i.e., 26.5.2016, 16.6.2016, 1.7.2016, 16.7.2016, 27.7.2016, 9.8.2016, 24.8.2016, 14.9.2016. When further cost of Rs.100/- was imposed and the matter was adjourned to 27.9.2016, again adjournment was sought for and finally on 19.10.2016 cross of PW.1 was taken as "Nil". On 17.12.2016 the complainants led evidence of CW.2, who was cross examined by the petitioner herein on

¶29

20.03.2017. When the matter was posted for defendants evidence on 19.4.2017 an application came to be filed for recall of the earlier order, which came to be rejected by way of the impugned order. Challenging the same the petitioner is before this Court.

¶30

¶31

NC: 2024:KHC:9447 CRL.P No. 5825 of 2017

¶32

Though the respondent was served and an advocate has field vakalath, none has represented the respondent today. On perusal of the order sheet in CC No.307/2015 would indicate that nearly 20 adjournments were taken by the petitioner for cross examination of PW.1. The stage of cross examination was closed twice, cost was imposed for recall. The adjournments would indicate the laxity with which the petitioner has been dragging the proceedings before the trial Court. Matter pertains to an offence under

¶33

the Negotiable Instruments Act and relates to commercial transaction which was required to be concluded as early as possible. The petitioner has deliberately sought to delay the proceedings to achieve his own ends of delaying in the order that may be passed. Though the above sequence of events would not require any indulgence by this Court, considering that proceedings under Section 138 of N.I. Act are quasi-criminal in nature, which would also warrant the petitioner being sentenced to imprisonment, one last opportunity has to be provided

¶34

¶35

NC: 2024:KHC:9447 CRL.P No. 5825 of 2017

¶36

to the petitioner to cross examine PW.1 subject to conditions to be imposed. Hence I pass the following-

¶37

ORDER

¶38

(i) The order dated 24.6.2017 passed in C.C. No.307/2015 by the 20^th ACMM at Annexure B is quashed subject to payment of cost of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand only) to the respondent-complainant.

¶39

(ii) The petitioner shall cross examine PW.1 on the very next date that the matter is listed before the trial Court.

¶40

(iii) Needless to say if by that date the cost is not paid by the petitioner to the respondent, the petitioner would not be entitled to cross examine PW.1 and the trial Court can proceed with the matter.

¶41

Sd/JUDGE

¶42

YKL

¶43

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 34 CT:SNN

Sri Jayanaik v. Sri Srinivasa

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Jayanaik v. Sri Srinivasa

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

Velishala Murahari Vs Muddaveerappa

Natekal Trading Company Pvt. Ltd. Vs State of Karnataka

Channappa Vs the State of Karnataka

Mr Mansoor Naghnoor Vs M/S Imperium Constructions Pvt. Ltd.

G. Ramesh Vs State of Karnataka

Ajaruddin Vs Dinesha