H M Holiday Home Private Ltd. Vs Doddananjappa

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 482 CR.PC PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 01.04.2024 PASSED IN PCR NO.218/2019 BY THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, DEVANAHALLI AND ETC.

¶18

2 -

¶19

NC: 2025:KHC:18728 CRL.P No. 5968 of 2024

¶20

HC-KAR

¶21

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION , THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶22

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR

¶23

ORAL ORDER

¶24

In this petition, the petitioner seeks quashing of the impugned order dated 01.04.2024 passed in PCR No.218/2019 by the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Devanahalli (for short “the Trial Court”) and for other reliefs.

¶25

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material on record.

¶26

For the order proposed, notice to the respondent is dispensed with.

¶27

A perusal of the material on record will indicate that the petitioner instituted the aforesaid proceedings against the petitioner-complainant in PCR No.218/2018 before the Trial Court, for the offences punishable under Sections 436, 464 and 468 of IPC. The petitioner being a Company was represented by its authorised representative, Sri. Ravi Gaikwad at the time of institution of the said proceedings. Before his sworn statement could be recorded, the aforesaid authorised representative, Sri.

¶28

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:18728 CRL.P No. 5968 of 2024

¶29

HC-KAR

¶30

Ravi Gaikwad expired on 17.05.2021, pursuant to which the petitioner-Company filed a memo on 29.11.2022 reporting demise of the said authorised representative, Sri. Ravi Gaikwad and for permission in favour of the Director of the petitioner-Company by name Sri. M.J. Siwani to represent the petitioner-Company and to prosecute the proceedings. The Trial Court proceeded to reject the application only on the ground that case number was not mentioned in the Board Resolution. Aggrieved by the impugned order rejecting the application filed by the petitioner and consequently, dismissing the complaint as abated, the petitioner is before this Court by way of the present petition.

¶31

A perusal of the undisputed material on record will indicate that in the first instance, it was Sri. Ravi Gaikwad, who was the authorised representative of the petitioner-Company and upon his demise, the Director, Sri. M.J. Siwani, who was also an authorised representative by the Board Resolution produced along with the application, sought for permission to represent the Company. Under these circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that the Trial Court completely misdirected itself in adopting a hyper technical approach in rejecting the application only on the

¶32

4 -

¶33

NC: 2025:KHC:18728 CRL.P No. 5968 of 2024

¶34

HC-KAR

¶35

ground that the case number was not mentioned in the Board Resolution, without appreciating that the aforesaid Sri. M.J. Siwani was the Director coupled with the Board Resolution mentioning Sri. M.J. Siwani as authorised representative of the petitionerCompany, the application filed by the petitioner deserved to be allowed by the Trial Court. Accordingly, I am of the view that the impugned order dated 01.04.2024 deserves to be set aside and the proceedings in PCR No.218/2019 deserves to be restored to the file of the Trial Court by allowing the present petition.

¶36