1;+->
- MW
IN THE HIGH CQURT 0? KARNATAKA AT BANz;}ALQ.;vé;§"'
DATED THIS THE} am my C1F'p¥iILY.~'_4駣§99fV I
BEFORE A A ' %
TEE HOIWBLE MR.
CRIMINAL REVIS_§QN cgggoafi
BETWEEN V A
SRETKRISHNA '
SIOTHIMMARAYASETTY '
AGEDABOUT48YE£§RS'§,-
R/AT Nr:").31['?, B(__".'27<'A'£\i_¥*~iA._EIJiL$i_N{3._ " »
ESYATARAYANAPUTRA :m:RGss'
BANGALORE--2;t:}_V , 'V
A. _ . FETITIONER
{By sri-,; I{AI»iALES'§+IWA}?2%_PGQJARY
mm SWARN_AKA.Mé1;.ASS?FS-.,,,;§..£}V}
AND
1, . , TH E» <E3RAN£.1H MANA.{;%f;_RA.
-BAN£}AI;(3RE'%Ci'i'¥ CORPQRATIVE BANK L{i'D,,
,VIJAY:1.BEAG&RBI2ANCH
' LaaNG;aL@RE..-£m_ " -- .
THE BRANCi%.'j_§a€$';RAGER
€3AN:'-4's.RA,.*3AN§i, B£XPEL.IIP§AGARA BUS'ST'0P
V MYSOREROAB
'-»13ANGa.L::§§<E--25
S29}: 2&5. HARAYANAPPA
SIQASEPALLAPPA
" gem; MAJOR'
we N€).8'7, 4TH mam
6TH GROSS, BYRAVESHWARA NAGARA
NAGARABHAVI MAIN ROAD
BANGALOREEZ-«'?2
RESPGNDENTS
(By Sri : E3 E1 SEETHARAMAR RACE FCDR RI}
3
THIS GRLRP FILED 9,1339? €3R,P.C. BY Tm A1:}'s:§:;~.¢A*:f,§',
ma THE PETITISNEER PRAYING *m.a:r THIS Han-13L.E_».¢e:r mj
MAY BE PLEASE!) TO SET ASEDE THE ORDER;:m.,~;1'.~3j;"2n}::3
PASSED BY THE N A§SL.C.MM., BAN?(3A;,0.1é:E'_ 1'N__
C.C.NC}.21298/ 2005.
mis CR.R.IP comma GN §«'0R:"14A£é'¥§§I:§s:T(m " .*i§H1us'v"%1%;'D}s;1i5,._
C3C)UR"I' MADE THE FOLLOWING: _' A'
The petitiancr has 'gtiischarging the
nsspondent Nos. 1 «t}:fe ij:':ha;r\gs for oflimces
gtuaishabie and 420 IPC1 by invoisring
the pmvismg of saw
2. 11fl'vlii€Ct§$'}S:3}jFV. details the facts; reievani: far the
{if this rcirision $311: as lméer:
The H issutcd a cheque in favour of the
C' pgt§fi{}I1€}: fQfv 1&§£J.' V amount at" Rs,3,40,Q0o;- on 92.072004 and
4: of the said cheque 1:0 tlm second respondent
éincashmcnt thmugh the: first Iespnndent bank, tlm
V Tc}–3:;§:i’;:’1éx::as rctumefi with an cnderscmcnt crsf insuficient funds
3130 on the: gmumi that {Em cheque was stalcdg If is
V fhmtrafter that that pefifianer aiicfing that the chaque has been
34
destroyed by the bank autharifies filed the eempleifit
Magstrate requesting to take action agaizzet reepeigdeiite fer V’
the aforesaid offences.
3. The learned Magistrate ‘of:.i1ae”gofi;ence as
against respondent Noel ax;;€i~{_3 hexve’i:’1″a§i:gdVV’i’s;a;ja1e:i tiie piwmess and
dismissed the complaint as No.2. After the
appearance Of Iespoegient ufi’1e’f1ea1ned Magistrate
heaxtl the co11nsvelV the respondent N05,}
and .3 -undee’§i:iei:::5impegeec§ has discharged fhem.
Agglieved bfithe hwfieien has been preferxed.
4. Ihvave the Aleaaefiied eztmnsel far the petitioner anal
5:31’V&§e3.?11e’:T’:e’G.}\:”‘¢:-fi?’?,’3′;l¢:i.;'”i’Ie1i’.e*,. ‘ eeeee e e
arise for my eonsiéerafien am:
‘V i) ..Whefle.er the erder of discharge of respendem; Nos. E
V ” 3 herein in respect of the charge far the efiences
punishable under Sections 204, 409. 418 and 420 IPC
is illegal or perverse?
ii) What Qrder?
e(
6. It is the contemition of ‘tin: licazrncd
the petiticncr that as a private camp1air.t*was {ha i
respgndfints the Trial Ccurt ought
accused invoicing Section 239 Cif:’P…C., éis.-V the
authoxise the Magistrate to where a
police mpart is submitted tci ‘afi.fiérL’Viiiiicstigafion. So also
it is his contention that made by tht
Kamataka State Commisssion in its
judgment is the acc11:s,cd as the
cnbscxvatien Civil Court fur the inizligf
against the i:§:;4:vzV:£1i3c:*:id.’ “i14:=: submits {hat the mtler cf
dimharge is diééseiiizts to be set aside. Per mafia,
122′; thfiiiiiééjédizdcnts supportcd the order passed by
theiT:’i.’aT1 i ~
3?. give-.i’iip4i=:rused the decuments pmduccd and fhf’:
mafia in the complaint. At the first instance, it is
‘$5-Emits that the: pm-visigms of Secfian 23$ Cr§P.(3 cmild be
only in a case where a po}ic:¢ report is submitted undsr
Ss’:zr:;f:i<311 17.3 Cr.P.C authorising the Magistrate til} axamintz the
itpaii submitted and 8130 the documents pmduceti 31161 afier
54
$’ving opportunity t0 the parties, if he considers tfie
the accused as groundless can dischmge; £133 u
£11: masons. Admittsdlya the 343151 pmvisfin
facts an hand, as then: is no 1′;1nd%c:r” L’
Section 1′?3 C:1:P.C: and the ibcfgm it.jl1e was
on the basis of a complaini under Sccficm
200 Cr.P.C and after taking of process to
mspendent at least to the
extent of the under Section 239
Cr.P,C the ::1Ilcri_S”é:*;>01;:§:1us_.’V
8, It is Ves;tfii:Iiis;’;}:§:c(}.:’::§z1″i’nciplc that a wmng menfion of
prpvisiarg ‘law itgéif’ vvnetla gmzmd ta reject the request, If the
‘jxuisdicfion to dmp the pmccedings under any
other” préivisiisiigsgef and awn if the aflcgations against thtf:
am gmunfllcss, he need not iixlllfilfltlfi with the proceedings
‘ W ” proceedings against the acrcused if he finds that
fie gmtmds to pluzmd against thfi accused. On this
the mattzézr, lcarzrmd counsel for fhc r4:-,$po11dent has
lpilaéizd mljance {tn the decision of the Apex Court mporttzzd in AIR
J 1992 sac: 2206, K.ll§.MAT’HEW V. sum 95* KERALA. Tlm
>4
pcmsa} of tlizts facts mvca} that there was a pfivatr:
Secfions E394 and 34 IPC, pm:-:55 was u
hale} that there is 31:: bar to dmp
accused persons, if the com;::la:i:1t 1§i-§3’:;:a faéié
Qfience agajfist the acctzst-.d_,. I1: ¥JrI:§seI3I4::dE that thc
Magistrate may {Imp fshcv V_ is satisfied on
rcconfiideraticzn of th::– no csfiisnzzc for
which the accuscéd. it ‘ivlz-‘§”Ii iis judicia} discretian
and 3:19 Magistzatc to drop or
mscind 1:11: f:Z’fie*;i E§i$i0n of the Apex C()1l1″i applies {:3
the “ivhcre there is no pmvigign. for
discharge specific pmvisian for discharge of
Thaugh Seiztian 239 applies to 31::
::as’é:3_ is subm:itt.ed after invesfigafion, the deftzcts
‘*….b¢r:3i31aft§:f% ta wtmld ccsmpal fin”: Court ta apply the
1ai¢:3_ c1fa:»w3:1 by $11: Aperx Couxt zrcfermd to supra to jugtify
13f accfisadu The perusal Qf $11: impugned £}I’d.€f2I’ defines
.fji1g§t’.ix:wi£:a3 the patent defects in the complaint which might tar haw:
‘V ‘ –».1§¢§é:1 féfentd by th: icamed Magistxate in his ozticr to indicate and
the 03:16:: :31’ dischazgct.
{XL
‘-3
9. That: is no dispute that the third msponde1yi:”iiér§i;i
t’
issued a cheqtze in favour of the petitioner fc§rH..a3i:tV.. ‘¢::a.,-._
R$,3,4~{},()0G/ -. At the time when the
in prapcr condition, it was met tamed “or”~sta}nd_.”g;1ti “rzvévn
submitted by the leaned 001111363 férfiie the
third resgzondent hemin was 331?? 50
far a5 €116 first rzzspcsndam: is “The Bra;1c.h
Manager. Ba11ga1om_ Ԥ5դ;3;ya11agar Branch.
Bangalore 40”, :fi§,f)t.V.giv@n the name of the
Branch Maxzfigeff the cemnfission cf the
ofil-3:n:::€u Whcgi “:L:3V of the complainant flmt the
eflficiais of thtif for taming £31′ dcst1″0yi11g thc
thé fzfiétfifi, an izlvestigaiimz in the matttzr was
€:£’§S'(i’?I3;’_’11IiE}’,’_ ‘V E? fer the cxzsmplainant £9 prima facit: shew
‘ V’ to is rcrafly ztfipensible and the cognizazzcc for
_ _f_–«th§”r3fi”€:11<:re $36: taken ztmfiy againsf: the said iindividal or £116:
was {hm} the Manager and in the: absence of the mam:
Manager of the Eangaiorc City C(}-(3Ip€I'atiVl:3 Bank
'V V cannet be an accusitd. Nowhtzre in the complaint, the
«ihame gf the Manager has been mentionfid by the camplaiat. In the
chcumstancms, the learned Magistrate ought not fig.-.vo__z_f1'*'x _
taken cogaizancc against the first respondent V.
thcugh these reasons are not assigned j3.eé:r17£%fd'*–h3Iagi.s_t1:a:t€§
file canijnuafion 01" the pmcecdings _aga:i,1'«1':-:t '1:hc '$355. \'
and 3 herein woujid serve no the Ivéas@i15. :st§'a§cdVVabove.
Thangh the ltzazned Magish%{t:E.. fieasons for
Ciischaxging the msgxandcnt }:z<.;::i'"e fi3.3:'b/__1i:2:sons assigned
can be slibstitlitcd 3.11:3' Dl13i :l:&tC'.'?v§'d:fiT of dischmgc of
mspondcmt N051'; -.¥%;i'$11v %1tv'fi*;ie2v'of the mattgr, I do next
find any j1L3tifia§lé§ interfemnxzez. Httnce, I
answer the point £0 pass the following:
"~oaBER
¥43;,=:fL_ri:',i<§::1 is dismissed. If the petiti0n::~:r«11as any
— V’ L”A….c-{her ‘I駧r’i:o proceed against the. accufieé, ht: is at libfifiy
u1:::a_§.n: rcczoursgt to the said provtisiens,
fiflg
Iud§'”§
hvr