IN THE HIGH coma" on KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
Dated this the 15"' day of September, 2009 C C
Before
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SUBHASH ;§et%;{<:_u1)IC][: C
Criminal Petitions 3487, 3488, 3489,V';5§é90' e,».3g~.349I* 2éI:€*$?L"" 'V,
Between:
Mr H C Chawla ,0 *
Authorised Signatoryl Power of Attorney
M/3 s D INFOSYS " '
H 68/O3, Bali Nagar .0 __ . ; AA
New Deihi 110 015 _.,_Commo;n Petitioner
(By M/s M G C & Co_._.
And:
M/S Iris Corr:._puters_ LVt'df_»
# I08, Prestige Center Po1'nt"~ __ .
Cunningham Road,"BangaIo're[52
By its Account EVXe_c_:uAti\re C . ' . '
Sri Bharama nanda Reddy' .. ' Common Respondent
x(VB=y_AM/s-Riingaranzo Asstsn )
Petitions are filed under S482 of the Crl.PC praying
set aside the-orhdefdated 30.5.2009 in PCR 8224/2009 (cc 12213/2009);
Fog 8223 (c(:g_122:0/2009); PCR 3220/2009 (cc 12209/2009); PCR 8222
'(CC_1'.32e}.I'_/2009); PCR 8223/2009 (cc 1212/2009) by the xv Add}. CMM,
Banga1ore._.5
Ix)
These Criminal Petitions coming on for Orders this day, the Court
made the following:
ORDER
The 2″‘) respondent in all these petitions is a co–accuseéi~._alo’;ig>w’ith the K i
petitioner. Though notice is issued, since no .:’elief’is«sought;asV’ag.ainVst”it, in
my opinion, it is not a necessary party. Petitioner,_is’permitte.d to delete t;he–~?.”d
respondent.
Petitioner has sought for on the file of XV
Addl. Chief Metropolitan *lvIagistrate,’liangaloreV 824 / 2009 (CC
12213 / 2009); ‘Ben -(j_cc”_,i22.i–u.f;2ao9):;’mi>cR 8220/2009 (cc
12209/2009),” pent’ €222′, 1/2909) and PCR 8223/2009 (CC
12212/2009). vilftespondenty’complainant. tiled a private complaint under S200
Cr.PC interalia alleigingithat itiheiiipetitioner who had made purchase of
._v”computerszlaehalf of the ‘£”””‘accused company, was due of Rs.57,57,388/–.
In’thisrreigard,” petitioner ‘herein on behalf of the 1″ accused, had issued several
ycheques. ‘On presentation of the said cheques, they were returned with a sham
‘insufficient funds’. Thereafter, complainant issued a legal notice calling upon
the accused.’ to make payment. However, no payments were made. In View of
the’.-sanize, private complaint was filed by the complainant.
5%-x
Learned Magistrate, considering the averments in the complaint}-sworn
statement and the material produced by the complainant, ,3″
case to be tried for the offence punishable under S.l38
Instruments Act and has issued summons. It this l
up before this Court.
The only contention of the petitioner__is,’ the Magistrate at Bangalore has
no jurisdiction to try the case as theiltranlsactaion place at Chandigarh
and Delhi. The chequeswere issued at Delhi. the proceedings are
vitiated.
On the otherlihand, _co3:1nselrepresenting the complainant submitted that
though the cheiques’-were issued.at”D’ellhi;’they were presented at Bangalore and
the Bangalore Branch hasissuedanlendorsement stating that the cheques were
;”di’shonoui’eEi b:§’,:..rheVvi.banker o’f”t’he’ accused as funds were insufficient. The legal
notice is iis::ue’d._frCm* Bangalore and the same was served on the accused. The
_ compla}nant’s office isat Ban galore.
» it Considering the circumstances and the fact that the legal notice was not
refiliedzbylithe accused and since the legal notice is issued at Bangalore,
«%’w2″<
cheques were presented at Bangalore, the coinpfainanfs office is at Bzitigaiore,
I do not find there is any error of jurisdiction.
It is submitted that some matters are g;en’di–.”-.=,g& at -‘_4De1Vhi.’i’~}iowe\rer, ran
such material is produced and that is not the gro:,i11d:1t_oquash’the proceed’f13gS;’V._
Accordingly, petitions faii. The sa_ri_1e: ‘-are ‘d.ismissed’.~