EN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 10"" DAY 01: SEPTEMBER 2009i} BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRJUSTICE SUB'HASH.B;:AD:'i.::: . 3 CRIMINAL PET1TI0N."N0i43i0i2oe'9i * ' C/W CRL.P.NOS.4440/2009. 44i41;20a39_;§.; , _ ~ BETWEEN": 1. Mls.\/allyview Trading : ~ V B404, City Place Dakbungalow Road PATNA. Bhaskar V' . S1Itt.R:éfiiiii}''1'2.,§}td ii 3 Petitiorier O At 606, Naréayan Plaza, »-- '' Exhibition Road PA7jijNA;. ' ' iV__ Adv.) --VM/s.Reijesh ,Exj:501'ts Ltd. I jv ' ~ _ __ No.4, Baiayia Chambers ' _'Ku'miar,_a Krupa Road , "ixiuinara Park East = « KB an galore-5 60 00} . ... PETITIONERS (common in all petitions) .. RESPONDENT
(common in ali petitions)
These Criminal Petitions are filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
praying to quash the criminal proceedings bearing C.C.No. 5642/2009,
5643/2009, 5644/2009 and 5645/2009 respectively pending on the file of
XV Addl.C.M.M., Bangalore. V
These Petitions coming on for admission this day, the Cot1rt~w.made
the following: ‘ » ”
O R. I} E R
In all these cases,.the petitioners’; id
proceedings in C.C.No.5642./2009,
respectively pending on the file of 5 do
2. Case of the petitioheiss conriplaint has been
lodged by the respondent for -tinder Section 138 of
the Negotiable H Complaint is not
maintainable as isstiled towards the liability and it was
issued only towards the secu–rit’y», ‘Second contention is that, there is an
agreementl “between the parties, which provides for arbitration clause for
‘~._tedres.sing_Vtlieindispute and as such, without invoking the arbitration
c]au.se;-._thelV’ch-equegsiiould not have been presented for encashment. The
third contention is that, the agreement is not disclosed in the complaint.
.. do The complainant in his complaint has specifically alleged that,
‘Qther’e was a business transaction for purchase of gold and in this regard,
“aaccused had issued ten cheques and those cheques have been dishonoured
:%t«A
mg
and in this regard, he had issued legal notice and thereafter, he has filed a
complaint.
4. Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act
against a iiability if the cheque is issued and same is di.s_ho.noured
despite demand, if amount is not paid, it constiitutes’-.an .;cffe’nee.V this
case, the complainant has disclosed that there a busiiness. ti~anssac.tion_
and against liability, cheques have been”d«iss’ned and’-the’reai?ter’;theflchequeslV
on presentation have been. Itiisé not the “case of the
petitioners that, the ingredients dr,1s:§ctio’n the N.I.Act are not
complied. In View ofgthe same; ey:en”‘difi’there___are any clauses in their
agreement or any ot;he,r de’€’ence,e:’.these.are Vall”matters to be considered at
an appropi=i_ate._ stage,’,no_gtVat ‘the”s.tage.’of issue of summons. E find no
ground to interfere with the:’p:toce.edin gs.
7,A.ccc,;1’di11igly, ali””t’nese petitions are rejected. Consequently,
Mis’c,§:i1_g37aé§/2’0e§,”_, Misc.Cr3.3775/2009, Misc.Cr1.3774/2009 and
” Misc}(:4ri.37?3’/:2iQ0§:> stand dismissed.
Sd/..
IUDG
LVKNM/–