_,A Afifi;v
In was HIGH can? or KARHAm3fiA;e e""
cxncuxw BENCH Aewnsanfihpefle"
namnn wars was 3"'nmx as fidegfifik 2ao§>fi"e
was HON'BL3 ea. Juseic%'AaALI'nAaAkAJ
cRL.fi~ke{xz2$1°22Q§a_
BETWEEN: .
ACME HomeekE?§;Ltfl;;*_ _ u "" H
By its Managinq*Directer¢ e
Sri Pandurahg,§haneham«Ankdlekar
Age:§Maj¢f};_ae, g a_ _;
R/o.'Hubli. Lf_ e 4""§ mPetitioner.
(By sri}.$urésh79'Hededagaddi, Adv.)
'Sh§ee_Gajahan Urban Co.operatiVe
7 Credit Scciety Ltd.,
Walvekargalli,
Hubli,-~_)
Repreeented by its Manager,
'*»e:r1sh*Kubsad, Hubli. mRespondent.
” This Criminal Petition is filed under
R”=__§eetion 482 of Cr.P.C. praying to quash the
entire proceedings pending before the learned
JMFCwII Court, Hubli in CC.No.l2/O8
{P.C.No.-426/O7) .
‘_________g””‘r”\.—-.,,…
This Criminai Petition oomingwrosiefcr
orders this daygthe Court made the fo1lowinqL:~
The petitioner herein; wfio is the geeuseefi
in PC 140.426/2007 »»- cc’_’2&:g;;.:£é/v.:’:c;o,8_
of the learned JMFC _iia Court} tfigbfi, has
sought for quashigo of the eetire proceedings
in the said case._~”-e*V
0-4″.” ,._p—‘5′
passes l_”I’.11itiV§*1E3%«,__§5aic3_f”P.C.’NCJ.428/07 ;(cc.:~so.12/o8;Q
came to be registered and process came to be
issged against the petitioner ~ accused for
tithe oéfesce punishable under Section 138 of
A “the 1*%:Iv”i’z”«.§~;_1;
.:
‘ SD Though this case is listed today for
Affoefieeéegge with the office objections, having
(—…r\»””’
‘i regard? to the nature of the order impugned
E herein and the reliefs sought for, arguments
,….§”*—x,—
3 =,
of the learned counsel for the petitioner he
~. .3-.(‘«.-‘-*-9
heard on merits. ‘ ‘
4. On careful reading of the order datéduu
15.12.2007, issuing process’ against 7;5is_
petitioner M accusedicforj ‘the h,bffenoe*c
punishable under Section $38 of “the hi Act,
it is seen that the respondentecomplainant, by
making averments in the betition and also by
stating “int his _sworn _statement, has prima
facie established that there was an existing
debt payable :5 hid by the accused therein and
“‘e:hie.fe:f5)reA, inivvdischarge of the said debt, he
“_issued,the_cheque in question which, on being
presented to the Bank came to be bounced for
‘n,insufficiency* of funds and that thereafter,
“*ithef complainant got issued to the accused
‘=i”: statutory notice and despite receipt of the
same, he did not give any’ reply’ to it and
therefore, he filed the said complaint. Thus,
t’___””\a-*’\–5.-v”
it is quite clears that the iearnefih:J$ECg&
applying his judicious mind to thekaverfiehtsui.
in the said complaint and iaiso Vtheguswroh
statement of the cemplainant, Tpassad’ftheRL
impugned order issuing §56eesses_ageiust him.
5. Sri Sures~haj.P.,i.ff1iIu<Eietiaég–a;idi, learned
counsel for the petitienerisiateused, placing
his reliafiee en the extract ef the account of
the: setitienéf dwithiithe Bank vehemently
contehded that the ascount came to be closed
on.el8jl.2QQe_:and the amount for' whichfixfithe
g,, I
'a*- cheéue, was 'issued was already' paid by the
°_ea¢euega§7bst, the comlainant filed the said
cqeplaihtfleniy with an intention to harass the
in petitiener ~ accused. This submission amounts
ie_tQ defence of the accused and the petitioner —
it __§acc:1.:sed will be at liberty to take all the
pleas available to him under law at the
appropriate stage of 'the trial of the said
(v—-..I'\.—/'"'\.z"
case but not at this stage of issuing eiecess
based on the averments of the cmmfi1aifif afide,
the sworn statement of the*b0mp;ainefitg :*e’H
6. Therefore, I am gt fihe consideted View >
that the present petifiph. is -ziablée to be
dismissed. HenceQ~the5seme,3:; dismissed as
V’ g ‘A ‘ ….. .. V