IN 'I'HE?Z E"-IIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED TE"i1S THE 20" DAY OF JANUARY. 2010.»
: BEFORE :
T}-IE3 }--~ION'BLE MR. JUSTICE KN.mas14~«1AvAé§'A;zzxYANA' H
CRLP. No.5042/;2'O05« C'/4-N. _. . ' ' 9'
CRL.P.N0s.5o43/200.5 & -5041'/2oAo5. " A » T
BETWEEN:
Naval Kishore Malu
Proprietor = --
M/s.Ma1u Housing I3ré1d:r:(1ts_ V V "
No.8, 11 Floor. 1*" Main 'L
Gandhinagar '
Bar1ga1ore~56()¢0Q_9 A ' ._
Petitioner
{By Mu Adv.)
AND ' . V
1.
M/ S. Kanoor C_0n~,:%t’:*’t:t:ti0ns
Lakshmi Coinpiex
E’1_0o1i. IO’ 1* ” ‘r–:n.9~.s
” R.M.v. ‘{:’,_xtn.
~ .Se1vde:sf:vi\ré1s.1e1ga1*
BanfgaV10fE.–V58O O80
M1j.’Vir£ay Ojha
Paiiner
M’,/S. Kapoor Constructlons
AA ‘ u_N0.5. Lakshmi Complex
Floor, 101″ Cross
R.M.V.I§Lxtn.
SaCi&1ShiVE1I1E1g8.l’
Bar1gaI0re~5€3O 080
3. M1″.Rajkapoor
Part n 6 1′
M /s. Kapoor Constructions
No.5. Lak:~3hmi C<):'npl€x
I Floor. 10"' Cross
R.E\/I.V.E£xter:.
Sad3.si1iVaI1aga1′
Banga1ore»58O O80
Res;5G11deVr’1’i;-s”t V’
[By Sri :L.Ma11esh. Adv.) ~
These petitions are firied L11’1VdA€I””S€C1,iC”x’t’1′.4V8′.2 C31′..F’.C’.fi
praying to quash / set aside t_h’e..V0rde’f dt.’ 24-.V3.”2_O’G5V passed’
on I.A.No.I by the “AcMM~…_ “‘e:3ang_aiore. in
C.C.NOS.15651./O3. 15656/033;””£5650/O3″a–nci tojquash/Set
aside the order dt. vi2_1″;~9.2005_ p”a.ssenCi~–_by the Adc11.S.J.. &
P.O.. Fast” Track ‘ C014:-rt.¥gi\ZT. ‘”t[_Bgmga1oi’e City. in
Crl.R.P.N0s.384/O5. 385/05 :81 383./0’5:’V’v.21_r5~.~d ailow the said
I.A.N0.I filed bythe CQfh’piai.11a’n1_”‘fQr a’merLdment of the cause
titie of the eQ’n1}7;i;j’§nt b__efc-_:r’e*th’ev IAc3wV’er_e_Qiurt.
These fof hearing this day, the
court ‘1’na.d_e”tthe’: i§e1l0’uzir;.g: A ”
heXehDER
” As paft.j_esV to #11} these petitions are common and
.*C,Omm0I1_”questioli of facts and law arise for
” ._ee:1sitie’1fa_t1’Q.I1″. in ail these petitions. they were heard
teégetherfeind are being disposed of by this common
‘ ergier.”
‘ In these pet.iti0r1s filed uncier Sectiorl 482 Cr.P.C.i
the Common petitioner has sought for quashing/setting
aside the order dated 21.9.2005 passed by the Add}.
Ex/
Sessions Judge and Presiding Officer Fast. Track Court»
IV, Bangalore City. in Crl.R.P.Nos.384/05. 385/05 8:
dated 24.3.2005 passed by xx: Add]. CMMI”sag:-ggi1cr§5,__
in C.C.No.l565l/O3, 15656/__O.3,__1565’0’/53.’V”rej_eetirig”I”
l.A.No.l filed for impleadmerit.
3. The common peilitiioiier A”‘filed._ ll{l”1ree’=-..privateV
Complaints under Section— of Cr,.P.C§. against
M/s.Kapoor Cor1strLi4otio1’1s;._;;1:fi1*rr;ev?_ofMpartners and also
two other persons V’a1’ieiV Rajkapoor stated
to I firm alleging offence under
Sectio’riu1’88 of_tl:.1eNegotiable Instruments Act. {for short
“‘l\l.l_.ACt”)”;~.. * V’l’lv1e7,_1e~a’rried Magistrate after taking
cvoggiriiganee oi? offence alleged in the complaint
A ‘£l_ireot’e§r;i issue of summons to the persons named as
VaCeusex:1.i:i ‘*th1e complaints. it appears that even before
‘–{,h’e’sur1ifi1oAiiis could be served on accused Nos. 2 and 3.
the Con1.pl’air1ani’. realised that the persons named as
aecL:sei:l Nos. 2 and 3 ie. Vinay Ojha and Rajkapoor
not partners of the firm and tihai they are only
A”‘§e»in”p1oyees of the firm. Therefore. the complainant filed
W.
W5-
against those persons having aiready taken cognizance
once against the persons named as accused In the
original Complaints. The courts below have 211so7gidot’,i(:ed
that the mistake sought to be reeti_fi_e’ci”‘-f,’_by__V5
complainant. is not mere typographical».«€ifr,or-,:orA m__is~–,
description of the parties as
the Complainant. ‘ d t t
5. The eompiainant, sought
deietion of the perso’h.s” Nos. 2 and 3
originaliy while des(:.rih.i1i9 them of the firm
and rm’:/~.t-.=§j}’ of three other persons as
aeeuseAdg’Nos. the ground that they are the
pa.ffIi€*YS of” firral. The persons sought to be
altogether different. persons. Therefore, it
‘tj;;.e’r”rr1ed that there is mis–deseription of the
peL1’t..Ie’s: “in the Circumstances, the courts below have
A’r1g_htlvy’ held that the decisions cited at the bar are not
u’§a»p’pii_eab1e to the facts of the case on hand.
6. As noticed above, soon after filing the eompiai1.’1t,
learned Magistrate took eog1’1iza1″1ee of the offence
s/
-5-
alleged in the complaint against the persons named as
accused therein. Now by the applications in question,
the complainant. sought to implead altogetller_d.i_lfe_rent
persons. If such request is granted,§_:lL£hi.eVss_” -1t__he_
Magistrate takes cognizance against those”‘ p:ersVoV1.1s.V they .p
cannot be proceeded for the-._
complaint. There is no plrov_isiohV.foI’ .the,_ MiagiS..t1=ate mt
take cognizance for the _sVecorid_v t1rne._1_n the same
complaint. In additio–n lttoff ‘jthi’s;f _ provided under
Section 142. _Magist.1*a’t’e’ A.t:akeV’co_éttizance of offence
under’Seciti”on l:if%8 onftihe l’€l.’I’;Ac’t on a complaint made to
him ivnvvritingl or t.he holder in due course
of tl_j1e case may be. provided such
c’o.rnpl’ain’tzhaslflbeenlyfiied mthin 30 days from the date of
‘”t_hea action as per clause{c) of proviso to
S»ection.i:3:8lV.of the Act. As per clause [c), the cause of
actiorito file a complaint commences, upon the expiry of
“1.5.’..lA”days from the date of receipt of the notice by the
_.;%drawer of the cheque. No doubt, the complaints
originally filed are Within the period of limitation under
Section 142. If three other persons are permitted to be
M,
impleaded as accused. it is deemed that the Complaint
is filed against: them on the date of allowing the
application. In which event. the (tomp121i11t.’.wto’.1i’id be
clearly barred by time against” them. *’t_h’ev
proviso to Section 142 gives a diseretio’n”t.’o–:t’he’eourt.to . L4
take cognizance of the offence “a11e’geri on eo:rrp.1″aj_nt
filed beyond the period ai’lie’g-e.d the-rein. if”t:he._:iV’ia.giistrai;e.L’
is satisfied that the_comp1yain’t..had sui’fie.i_€nt,7cause for
not making a eompiairiit-wi-t_hi:–nj. siL1’e’h.y§)eriod. In the case
on hand, no sueh ai’tter1’ip1t fOva}:._vn1ad:eVV”by the complaint
to i1w’ol{“e.th::: seiifd’pr’c>yi’sion:””‘ it
7. “Lh1de1′ the’fiii7¢LiIfi’St?ITlC€Se I see no error cornmitted
by the be.’io\i.?’.inirejeeting t.he applications filed by
i.he'”pe”t’.itioner seVei{i1’1g to implead some other persons as
Viaeciusedy. ” ‘[V’he_1=ref’o1’e. there is no merit in these petitions.
Ae.eord~in_’;i§1’yA,i they are dismissed.
sdlg
judge
8*