IN THE HIGH COURT 0? KARNATAKA
CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD " H' " V
DATED THIS THE sow my OF MARCH; T'
BEFORE:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.N;.;i;1.GAMQ'.:{AN "mjs 1'
CRIMINAL PET;Ti't31§%'*rso.264;.fz0oé'
BETWEEN: ' V' 'V
RASTRIYA CHEMICALS__3g' V
FER'i'ILIZERSVL'}'D.,
HUBLI, N0.6;'vI;1A'Y$«I§;AGAR _
I-IUBLL32; " " .
REPRESEzs2f:'f:::1)';3Y iTS_ « =
MARK:«;r;NAG.VMAm_\G3R '
NU!-Ila! ¥iASA'LjKURANE}"«... _
R/OH,UB.Li.. *
- - * ...PE'I'I'I'IONER
(BYASRI : BASAVARAJ S§"'i5ATIL, ADV)
'A195 x .....
A "s:§'1;xAQi'é A$AiéPA
«Sm MALLIKARJUNAPPA KADDIPUD!
R AAHAVEVRI.
{BY SR1 ;sHIvARM S.PA'I'IL, ADV)
A{3E:46 Y"£1:i;aRs
oC--C:Bi;s'INEss
R/0 HADDARGERI ONI
RESPONDENT
THIS CRL.P FILED U/8.482 CR.P.C PRA_4’r’..i N§§_:”:’e~.,’_I’O
QUASH THE ORDER DATE£).27.1G.2006 PAss_;-.33′ »E§”£’e. ‘u!’HE
JMFC-Ii COURT, HUBLI IN C.C.NO.16}6[ 2005_.–*._
‘THIS ems COMING on FOR HsA.RINe{:fH’1ess~Drag’~ u
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOW?-.:NG: ‘
ORDE§g*z
Petitioner filed a private 2005
for the ofiences punishable 1;31(ieef;e_:Lf$ee$i§)n Zl”(‘3’g3».,o1Mj\Iegotiab1e
Instruments Act in ‘of cheques and
for a sum qf . had taken
issued process in
C.C.No.-~16 appeared before the trial
Isade by the learned aclvocates
on both «tulixeé there is likelihood of settlement
of be:t\V’a§;’:’f:-4.:t1:1_f£__]_:;I::, parties, the case was adjourned fiom
.A 27.10.2006, the accused was present before
counsel was absent. Since the counsel for
was not present, the trial court dismissed the
R eezspiéifit for default. Hence this petition.
” 2. The amount involved in this case is Rs.1,2(),%O/-
fer dis-honour of two cheques issued by the respondent. The
3
order sheet of the trial Court specifies that the matter was
adjourned fI’€)}.ii3. time to time on the ground that the fiietter is
likeiy to be settled and compromised. Though _1-gm:
was present on 27. 10.2006, the complaint fer
default on the ground that the u;;1e’!;
present and no Iepresentafion was Forvthe ‘aisse’m:”e of
advocate, the party can1:tet”‘be pfifiisheéi. in the
circumstances, I am. ‘fo£«_e’£hat petitioner is
entitled for one more fault of the
petitioner his V
:KE’o1~’. ‘above, the following-
” ‘”MaQRDER
; . ._1_,. The peV1V:iti1on is Ige-reby allowed.
impugned order datm 27.10.2006 in
1616/2005 passed by JMFC-1: Court, Hubai
‘is31ereby set; aside.
JH*
3.
The complaint in P.c:.No.551/2005 is
restored and the trial Court to ”
matter in accordance with
Z
accordingly.