High Court Karnataka High Court

M/S Aasstitva Promoters And … vs M/S Aashrayaa Projects on 22 October, 2009

Karnataka High Court
M/S Aasstitva Promoters And … vs M/S Aashrayaa Projects on 22 October, 2009
Author: Huluvadi G.Ramesh
IN THE HEGH COURT OF KARN ATAKA AT BANGALORE
Dated this the 22"' day of (ktober, 2009

Before

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HULUVADI G  A.

Criminal Petition 5184 / 2009

Between: '   ._

Mfs Aastitva Promoters & Developers Pvt Ltd
# 30I'1, D V G Road, Basavangudi

Bangalore 4
By its Authorised Signatory & Director . = .  _  ;
Sri Promod Kumar P Lakshman   " Petitioner

(By Sri H S Ramamurthy, Adv.) 

M/5 Aashrayaa Projeéné-.._--v  V' V

#1? 15, Sai Mars-5101:, In F1cor-~._ ' . 
ICross, J C Road, 'Bangtdore-.2'.  h «
By its Partners - VM_4Pa:11r1ei11_abh§,1 Re, fly
Sri D Rajagopal " ' "   Respondent

  ..  ..... 1' N

 ~. x"di.'--1_1Vtis Ctditrrrina}~:Petition is ("tied under S482 of the Cr.PC praying to

 quash the__propeedVi'zigS and order dated ?.2.9.2(}(}9 in Crl.A 5(}8I'2G09 before the

 ~ ,. Sessions J udgeA,';.Banga1ore city.

 This Criminal Petition coming on for Adtnission this day, the Court

   the following: 



ORDER

Ms K Geetha undertakes to appear for the respondent.

counsei for the petitioner.

Accused petitioner was convicted for the oiifgnce under’ -iof_iihef:

Negotiable Instruments Act, on being étppeztled, appe._ll2ite co_urt..qt=ttshed –. L

the conditional order suspending the sentenceis~trbjec_t to deposit of the amount

of compensation ordered within one vrnonth ‘orderipidaAted._26.6.2009.

0 3 i

It appears, t_hé,.,Vpet{itiio._ner. couid not conipiiyi with the said order and is
shown to hate irizrdet. appipication _ui1’1″d sought further explanation and
thereafter, one–.mo.re application~wiis.,4i’i.k:d seeking further extension. The
same has been reje’cted’ag2ti’nst iwhi’c-h.’ petitioner is before. this Court.

V Aceordinrgitopiitiie petitioners counsei, he needs three months time to

compiy with theprder as he has kept the property for sale and the amount is

‘ huge and thejktiireinot in a position to make payment.

Learned counsel for respondent submitted that petitioners have not

“-4,sho’\tvn their bonafides even by depositing 5()% of the amount ordered to be

‘it’

deposited and unneeessairily the matter is dragged on and, the order passed

does not require any interference.

However, in the interest ofjustice. to enable the petitio_tiet Vtoitaake 21″‘

prompt attempt to make payment, another six weeks tithe:35i4gprahted__ftot:1__todtty

to comply with the order of the trial coorpt. Acct:-rdingly, the’–i.interi’1n order’

passed by the appellate court is modified.

 ,«    ii
     1::  IUGE

Petition is disposed of.

An