Mr Somashekarappa B M vs M/S Housing Development Finance … on 4 August, 2008

  Ltd;'f?iDFC)
, * HDFC'H4O.1iS€, No.51
  
 ._ "-B.anga1*e;~e~: .. RESPONIJENT

* V advocate for the petitioner praying that this Hoznfblc Court

 '--may be pleased to quash the complaint filed by the

 respondent, pending in CC.No.1$25/2004 on the file of the

XV ACMM, Bangalore at Annexum—A.

IN THE mm coum’ or-‘ KARNATAKA AT’V;|3.(§4¥~V:£ €.v…:£ i5:(a’JR£.E

DATED was THE 47″ mv OF Angsgisf, ‘ MA

BEFۤJRE _ ;

THE HON’BLE Ma.Jus’r1cE zmam sHA:41%_.§§sz@«sc2LibA%t:%
CRIMINAL PE’l’fiJ’.~9N’. ‘.,No43..19VA8_(‘:

BETWEEN:

Somashekarailpa :

No.17,3sfl?_Ma;u’Rog;¢:’ _ ”

‘.

.. PETITIONER
M. L. j raj ‘ ‘

AND: V

iv..Housifig Dffivelcwirpnaent Finance

a Crl.P. is filed under Section 482 of C’.r.P.C. by the

. 3.

consequently plmds far recalling the NEW issued
against him. A4

3. Whethc-3′ the debt in

recoverable debt or not, has 10 by?’

the Trial Court. However;-. ” ‘A

disclose that the deiif.

The complaiI1ant,.-has fQ1§e§_¢d” tHe”1€:gai formalities
before lodging “cheque is returned

with an grgéldrsement’ _?fins_i1£}’it;ient~fi1nds”. Hence, this

:V€I1’ot« gound to quasi: the

#ec£ept1°I1g the cause shown by the

the NEW issued against him may be

‘ ‘fr a period of thme weeks from today by

the costs on the petitioner. Accordingly, the

* éfofléxgving order is made:-

Petitian is dismissed. However, the NEW issued

against the petitiontr is suspended for a period of time:

\/J”