High Court Karnataka High Court

B M Mallikarjuna vs Smt M Vishala on 14 October, 2009

Karnataka High Court
B M Mallikarjuna vs Smt M Vishala on 14 October, 2009
Author: Huluvadi G.Ramesh
Cr§.P No.3330/2008

IN THE HIGH COURT or KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY or OCTOBER 2009 

BEFORE

THE I-ION'BLE MR. JUSTICE HULUVADI G,   C' C

CRIMINAL PETITEON Nosissolgzoossp -1 'A ~ '-
BETWEEN V C

B M Mallikarjuna,

S / 0 Mylar Rao,

Age: 52 years,

Nirmai Off Set Printers and

Box Industries,

Durgigudi Main Road,  _ 1    . in :

Shomoga.  C   =:   "  A. _  Petitioner

(By s;-1 R B Deshp.and:e;_,Ady=-... fo'1¥'i'.pet*i:ijiu1ie~ij}  A

AND:

Smt. M Vishaio, C
W/o M Ramesh,  *

R/O "DeVaki'7,_  V'  

Dr, Baskar  .Compoi,ind,

Oid Post Gffiee-Road,  **** ~ "

Shimoga._, A , .4  Respondent

Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of

..h_CfCrini§na1 Procedure, praying to quash the criminal proceedings

étgamsteithe petitioner in C C No.200/2006 pending on the fiie of the

‘1.__i>r1, cm: Judge (Jr. Divn.] & JMFC, Shimoga.

‘ This Petition coming on for Admission this day, the Court

. n12;ude~s«ie foiiowirlgi 33»

Cr1.P No.3330/2008

GRDER

The petitioner has sought for to quash the criminal procee’dings

pending before the JMFC, Shimoga, in C C No.200/

2. The respondent has fiied a private’«ccorrapifaint.

200 of the Code of Criminal Procedui”eL”ag_ainst’ the then’

offence under Section 138 of the Negotiah1e_ Iiistrunients alleging

dishonour of cheque issued for’ Based on the sworn
statement. which is said_:’to__be filed’ ‘ and sworn
before the Oath ___th.e leaif1*ied:”1’\’/Vfagistrate has taken

cognizance andj.sVs1i’ed”‘1:3i?ocessf’The”sainefhas been assailed in this

Petition.

3. Heard.

1’nsa1’«–of the order sheet, it is seen that only on the

pe

strength statement, which is produced by way of

hT:gaffid_avit, the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance and issued

Cr1.P No.3330/2008

5. The learned Magistrate observed that as per Section 145 of
the Negotiable Instruments Act, the said sworn statement is

permissible.

6. It is the submission of the learned Counsel fOI”-<l:'L':l;1€.

that such a sworn statement could be entertaiiied ev.nly.at'l:ti_3el time V '

trial, so far as giving evidence in-chief, but the time of

cognizance.

7. In View of the above submission.. the I7-‘.’etitio_n allowed.

Taking cognizance and issuingillprocessiv the petitioner is

quashed withvlvalllldirectiorilito learned» Magistrate to record the

sworn statement. on Oat,h’afidl’proc»ee.d in accordance with law.

3&1,/g.

JUDGE