Mrs.Jayalaxmi Parashuramegouda vs Mr.Sanjeev on 9 September, 2009

'' :'AN_jj:

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNAT}\Kfix:].:    "

CIRCUIT BENCH7.AT»L>.HAR'wAij-'I.  '

DATED THIS THE 9TH DA? ,_

'BERQRE",

THE HON'BLE MR JUST£.CE;-_I-1ULUV}¥D1.__,G_. RAMESH

CRIMINAL PETi']:;_C§_i\_I 'VC»F'2oo9

BETWEEN:

MRS. JAYA.I_.AxMi=;jVRARAs1~1U.RA.MEGoUDA

w/0 PARASHI;'RAM'EGO'U.-DA  "

AGE: 44;yEARs,1Q,_CC: _I_-I"O_US'I3I:I_OL£) WORK
C/0:1'-i'AR1SHf'.   _ 

No.24'Q/ 1., MUNEYAPPA'"VBUVILDJ-NG

JAKKASANDRA, ISTRABLQCK, 

KO RAMANGALA,'}3A'NG:.ALC)RE-30 .. . PETITIONER
('EEK SR1 SRINAND A. PACHCHAPURE, ADV.,)

 ~-MR-s'. 'sA1a1J'E'Ev,RAvAJARRA BASTWAD

R,/O~I~IUKKE;R'E'
TAL-UK _}1UK1sT1LIE-

FOLLOWING:
The petitiener   the order dt.
16.2.2008 aI*Id':~Ler1tire'.' vs C No.113/ 2008

insofar as. on the file of JMFC,

Hukkeri. ._ I 2 ' 2'

 "Heard  ., 2 V2
2  According tcrthe compiainant, the complaint has been

 vfiiedst ;:Sec.I38 of the Negotiabie Instruments Act,

wherein itsitranspires, the complainant is a businessman. in

 computer neripherals and had lent his computer peripherals

A  AAfu:V32r"'~.¢rent to the Sparkle Technoiogy Private Ltd. on

W



4. it is seen that admittedly petitioner is--'"--not a
signatory to the cheque and aiso she is 
Director. Moreover, at the time of  
petitioner herein was not said  the

#

cheque is said to have been issuedasiseicuritgrii  
Kittur. In the circumstances}:p_et1tione_r.'isA9sE1id:v:to'"beA'ths .
Director at the relevanteepoineg-«oziitirne,,.@,:ihe..fact remains
that signatory of the  of the
affairs of the vcornpanlriiiéi' and not the
petitioner :_   proceedings
initiated   would be abuse of process.
Accordingly, =    passed:

ORDER

is aiiowed. The impugned proceedings

aga_inistviithei1pe’titioner herein pending before the JMFC,

i ii News IUDGE

Htfstkerii AC No.113/2008 is quashed.

Sd/-‘