High Court Karnataka High Court

Sri Sadashiva Rao vs State By Spp on 19 February, 2009

Karnataka High Court
Sri Sadashiva Rao vs State By Spp on 19 February, 2009
Author: Huluvadi G.Ramesh
IN THE HIGH COURT 0;? KARNATAKA
CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD
Btztedtisis the 19" Day affiebruwy, 2039

Before

1'Ir"IEHON'BLE MR JUSYYCE HLFLU&2=1B£».AG..g'4.4;{£.§§I5 »'   

C'rum::' 'a£Petz£w"n 1133/zwaf 
Betweeu: V '

S111 Saéashiva Rao, 70 yrs
R13 :4 87253, HALIII Stage ,   - 1  A' V'
801%. Road, Bangaiore 561} £175   _  ;  1    Fetitioner

(By Sri K A Ariga, A<iv.)__    'V

And:  ''''  . 

Nikhat Fatizcriia  mam' 
35 yrs, R/0 # c:~2,_.:=*3, {30\ri;._Qt2;;:€s;'s'*«--._b " '
Near Water Tank,"%{ishweslawa:7_Nag:~ir

Be§ga1zm~ £0 

 fyhmugh» 125;: 193; lwlder %'hr.:z__§;1;$band
  A.b'du§ Respondent

{fly-.

‘ fI’£:tit§on is filed under $482, Cr.PC gaying to

3 V cguash thé”cvo:rt;)1ain%in cc: 45252904 before the JIVIFC, Beiguatn.

._ 5 ” , ma C::imin31Petition coming on far heming ibis day, the cam

_frzade._flie iififlewingi

W/,

ORBER

Petitioner has seught for quashing the compiaint bef{§§€::”‘

the }MFC, Belgaum in cc 46232004 on the bagishia pm’~g}ate_;¢¢1;%.p15in: _

in N€s.908f20(}3.

Respondent flied a compigint agai:b;;§§g».L:he”p§titi.{§n€r–
under 52.133 cf the Negotiable of me
cheque for insufiici§nt_ fi11j1ds, fin Kamataka
Bank Ltd. __:%n “tiff: compiaint filed,
While érdered for issuance sf
process. in this pctitien on various

grounds.

the fiéiizplaint as wail as the petificrn, it is seen,

prétiizizz-.[t’;3r A the chairman cf Kamataka Financial Sarvices

whic1§’ha€i igsuaééifiié cheque aiong with the Elxecutiva Director Raj aram

‘ » per the pmvisiens sf $.14} of the Negotiable Instruments

« ;¢§§t;,V pseaéans who are ix; chargfi of the afiaézs of tha company at the time

.« Eatrmmission cf the sfience weuid ‘be: liabic ané against Wham

‘ pmsecuticn coulé be Eaurzched. /,

‘>4′

This petitiener is said to be the Chairman of the company.

the cimumstances, it cannot be said at this stage that pretitioneg.¢.i$”fi:e}t* ~

responsible for the conduct of the business and aiso it ca:m(i€.__§)e.sai:ciL’

that he is not in charge of the business of the cattijiaity. ‘ that i%iéia;’ $1′

the mafier, thfiffi is no scope for interference in i.he paéseé ‘by’ the

leameé Magistrate in issuing process. I5eiiti}f>it._is dis.inésse5.