Raju R Metrani vs Shakeel Ahmed I Kalghatagi on 7 September, 2009

IN THE man COURT OF KARNATAKA'  A' 

CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWA1§_' ' F.

DATED THIS THE 7th DAY s_j3PT'EM-BEt_§'«2V0§'9' _ 

Before  V'

THE HON'BLE MR Jusrrcué' "HULUV.1_1V_DI 7&3 

CRIMINAL PE1:1T1oN"Nd;4C4-9/2067 

BETWEEN:

Raju R. Metrani C 2 

S/0. Rukamasa §\/£Cfrar1;'3' _ _  

Age: 37 years, Ocfc: E3jL1sin"e"ss  
R/0. 1607, Bakle galié. :'_ b  
Hubli town, I~§ubv1i._ ''1: '*i::,--  "

Dharwad 
(By Sri. Naraysn   
 I "

S/0": _Is?mai}s9;b»_ 'A  -.
Age: 40 yrtjars; OCC: Char coo} Business

 VV  0. Bad.a'fninaga-x?__{o"1d layout)
 Black No.1 12,__'Kesi'1wapur
_  Dharwad District.

W,"

PETITIONER

RESPONDENT



This Criminal Petition is filed under 3482 cr.Pc;':'p:?fei;}i'1iig to
quash the entire proceedings in CC No.461 / 05 on__;'th'e-« "the
JMFC--II Court, Hubli as it is illegal and consequently" aisoi'selte.aside

the order dt.8.12.2004 in taking cognizance of th_ee--offe'nce._as. aga"in.st'7.._
the petitioner herein for the offence p-,/'ii'/~3..138p of  /L.f,:Lin..pCCj 

No.461/2005 by the JMFC--II Court, 

The petition coming on for hearing this  thethcoiizrt Inside the
following:  " V ~   " 
ORDER"«.pVi 

The petitioner has  fo_r}* of the proceedings
before the learned .rv.J'1VI:FC. -- 111"' team, 3f¢:gaen;.; fin C.C.No.461/2005
and also to set aside oj:deif_dated'-.O$:«',V_12._:2004 in taking cognizance
of the offence asagainsi-tithe'"petitioner herein for offence punishable

under SectioniI'3p_8lof Nego'tiable".»Instrurnents Act.
2. Heard. '  

 if  3.V'iiiPlcco'1<ding to thempetitioner, the complaint has been filed by

the' c.yelSpori:len:f " alleging that the petitioner approached him for

V"*~='financia1._ueiss§..eta'ii.ce and he had given him Rs.12,00,000/--. In

'«.«i'.j'jliqui~dation "of_A'3the same, the petitioner herein had issued a cheque

llrjibeaiiirig__I§lc.210484 dated 16.09.2004 for Rs.12,00,000/-- drawn on

W



Oriental Bank of Commerce, Hubli. It is alleged that  on

presentation through his banker the Bylahongal Urban  4_

Ltd, Hubli was dishonoured for insufficient  of . 0

legal notice, since the petitioner/accused"did'_'_'noit 
learned Magistrate based on the coiin._pEaint   and
issued process and proceededfagainstthelpetitionerfavccused.

4. The grievance of git:i'ithisL.jiincture is that the
cheque is not issued  him  'account is opened

by a partnership :.fi1'in_ifig,t1?1e"narrie._of.."Sri; Gajendra Wines. The said

partnership  initihefyear 2000, consisting of the
petitioner andxone  Vishwanath R. l\/Iethrani. As
per the terrns  deed, the bank account has to be
o_p'en,ed  n_ameui°ofv-...t.he firm and 13' partner namely V. R.
Met'hai'.a.ni=.is  to operate the Bank account.

5*.' l--it)wevei'i1.a,ccording to the learned Counsel for the petitioner,

_l_igi'_:thieixcomplairitg came to be filed against the petitioner. The

 complainant and first partner of the partnership firm are

0' i.f'h_a"vingii;good financial relationship and transaction with each other

W'



and to take revenge as against the petitioner herein, the signature of
the petitioner was forged on the cheque and both of th€1'1'l with'-hand

in glowy made a plot against the petitioner with oblique. §rnio'ti£.ie*««an*C':._.

their personal gain. Further, according to the _s'ubrriission'--,of 

learned Counsel for the petitioner, the authoriised isiigiriatory'iier.__\tl'iei_tlSt i

partner namely Vishwanath R. l\/Iet,h'rani and the pcr.titi'oner  not 

all responsible as there is no transaction betvsieeni: the complainant
and the petitioner. The transaction between the partnership
firm and the 1st party. This petiitiorier icannvoit~:i..be*i"rnade liable. He

further submitted thatit',;l{1e other  been impleaded as

the accused. There isn.o~~.such"liability-i against the petitioner to make

payment and accordingly  ouashing the proceedings.

 ,6.  appearis'tvh--at'the discharge application is said to be

filed'--t:l1rou'gh  Magistrate. However, the said application is

 * ,_pending'forconsideration.

  All  contentions are need to be noticed by the Trial

 ,li; .is_,ialso to be noticed if at all the cheque has been issued for

legall%V_gd_isc:hargable debt or liability, either it can be proceeded against



the partnership firm or against both the partners and there is
connivance of other partner with the complainant. This is also the
matter for enquiry. However, without considering all thevsei.._a'speets,

simply on the statement that the petitioner is 

signatory and his signature has been forged, this  r:o"i;ie 

to a definite conclusion. I think it needs _preli'rni:'iaryi'e.11qiii1jyfor i'

detailed enquiry, as the case may be, by theiearnedg,Niagiistrateii""l'hei.

petitioner is at iiberty to approach theiV'le:a'rned M'agis'trateiiand seek for

discharge or face the trial after" the opilnioriiis formed iniiithis regard.

Acco1"dingljf,"eipetitioihl"isidiiisposediiiiof. Send back the records

forthwith.

   Sd/"
 .....  

V V gVa’b/