IN THE HEGH coum’ OF KARNATAKA AT BANGAL§}R_E.:’_:’_~-..V
BETWEEN :
1
3.. ASSQCZATES, Advs.)
VVEUMBAI-4391013 V
i
DATED THIS THE 303″” an OF APRIL 2o;3§”‘ ‘ ; ~f .
BEFORE
THE Hc>r~:’BLe MR. 3US’¥’ICE:’3i\'””5A«’C1 ” %*
;g;,,g. fig 3 gggm 3 %
KMPODDAR
MANAGING DIRECT{)R _
Si(PODDA?.
mW0P~
Ex _’$.:f3CE’~.PREE3§DE?§TV”‘ *
(E?\iTE§usTR:AL ssmre
3.3. MARG, L;:2w:sR. FARE1.
PETETIONERS
‘%’%ws’mR% DEAL compureas AND ?ERIPHERAi.S
R*E.PL. BY ITS PRGPRIETGR
= : vzsm. KUMAR JAIN
%:;:-ea? m1, MURUGAN PLAZA
A’ 199,5, FKELLANE
HE CRGS3, S.P.R€}AD
BA!’~§GAi_ORE~S60 C102
RES?ONDEi\iT
&\,@/
3 .
CRL.PETIT’ION :55 meg U/5.432 CR.P.C
ADVQCATE ma THE PETITIDNER pmvxns mgrruxs
HOWBLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TU
PRQCEEDINGS AGAINST THE PE§TITIONERS”-._WvHQL’A¥EEj
ARRAYED AS ACCUSED NO..2 T0 IN C’.C;’i’i’Q}’39208f0.5 “‘
(ARISING OUT OF PCR N0.2?44%’5/05)’ «?E–ND.I.-‘3.G
FILE OF 13TH ACMM, 8ANGAi..GRE;~–, ..
This petition caming on far adffiissiosé r3:’c:ufi
made the fefiowing _ _ __
Invakirxa initiation of
ibrasecutiozy. for the offence
punisifi_a_b_i¢:- Instruments Act,
in PCP;…No..2%4?i6iffiVi§ gn%駧::.c;3a2es;cs) I5 questioned by
the ;3etit’its:1_;e’r:%,i3Vé2féirf. = 4
‘f’he fa”‘cta,: a:3v1_____iff:f::.aatrix reveais that the campiainant
»Aij:iti;a;te§:«.;::zf§i¥’s%.ecut!ar1 against the petlticmers an the
‘a£§’i$aatV§é§§’.”_thai'{flay had issued six cheques as detalied in
; t?ré””’s:;::i?{p.iéi”i;:t, assuring prompt rzayrnent, which cheqtses,
finT?«-.1g:réé.entation ta the fiank er’: variaus datefi, were-
}*gé’ii1f:néc3 dishenoureé with the share ‘lnsufflciency of
‘”fi2:*3eis’.
E
1,
3
3. The jurisdictéonai magistrate finding
materiai eetabiishine cause ef action as eevise_;3«eEi”‘:iVé§;d.e§’
Sectier: 143 cf the Act, teak ceenizafiee end u
against the petitioners. The petitieeers’hfe\}e._.’q-rjfitiereeee’..;v_e
the eaici erder er: the eiea that”-vghiie’-teVk§eg V¢,fer:.é§ju.’*:V!z_V.;’-ff:V1-i’;e,.V .
the magistrate has ieneree ere net
within the territerza: jumsd%éé;t:o:*§ and they are
reeiderxts of Boméeayfh; that”‘e§1;eérev”x§e$”.fi’efeaferial to Show
that the :*.V’§i”i’v£}V’:i:'”””V1:IV:”1Eif’ krrewiedce.
According issueé witheut
their i<tf:_wiedeeL"*eef'V-tihei'r whese acts dc net Dine
them. In' 'sij§_ert,' iehat the eetitieners are not
i%ebie'_%fCfere~.actieeeefiieef Section 138 cf the Neoetiabie
I»n$'t::::eer-;Ai:s–£ic:.
_
4,.’ AiiV.ti§’e§.*§e urged is e queetier: cf fact. There is fie
7-‘4._’__”euestie’iz:_ef few menifestma en time basis ef whichiiieaaiity
“‘}–¢i;fV.;:ff§::se<:utien has ie ee tested. The question as te
' ,.._j1'A:V yfiriethe¥ the eheeues have been issued with or witheut the
» imewieéae ef the petitioners ie "fie be found during trial.
Simiieriy, whether the marzaqer is respcmsibie er whether
flew
ii;
«:1
the ‘gaétitimfiers thamseivefi are respansibie is _4.aiV_:s:§ ~.._a
question denendinc an the pieadinqs.
5. I do not fifid any error sf ju:?isd:.:::o?%::
the maaistrate in taking coqnizanée. “s?’a; as btfifciuash~:’fi’aséW.
iivraceedinas. Hence, the :3etit’i*z:§’i’*is d”ev€zi _d”–€3’_?.= amd ‘V
is, tiiereferre, rejected at “the stééééif ua d:fr:iss9:€i:i”i*£s”-iejif.
6. In View _a=fV1dis:f:*:s’:=.-:«’:.£i.i~’ fif.”‘thé “._;V§ié:één on merits,
I.A.I;’fi8 s~.ee_e.’ee:i§*:tf;g Ziiifige crder does net
survive vf(;fVct:z}%§iiié3r_ati§’fiV é:’r£::~Ei:_: afizcordinaiy rejected.