IN THE HIGH coum' OF' KARn:ATA;<A;; ~ . cmcurr BENCH AT DHARWAl)_f*-- % .__f V. A DATED THIS THE 202: new OF J BEFGRE 1 HON' 31,13 MR. JUSITICE RAM"MoHAy".RE.'D'DY=«: A CRL.P N0"i' 1:()%} op BETWEEN ' 1.
NAGRAJ VV ”
_
R/AT
Pxampm I!€iI}US’1’R« . ‘J *v.’Es”rA:rE;
VI:5HWANE=EDAM POST M
BANGAi,oRi3;g1 ~
(By sri. .13″ G
” pmrzosan
1″. , Irmusrnrss
“BY yrs 93 R’I’N’ER VIKRAM JAIN
AGEB: ABOUT 38 years
.. , Toccmusmass R/A N 4,
” _ GOKUL INDUSTREL
ROAD I-IUBLI
(By Sri.: 1′ A cmvan ADVOCATE)
..RES?0NI)ENT
CRLJ’ FiLED (HS. 482 OF CR.P.C 13′! THE
ADVOCATE FOR THE PETYHO-NER PRAYING THAT THIS
HOPPBLE COURT MAY BE PLEASEI) TO QUASH: THE
éifik
dishonourcd, issued statutory notiec dated
and thcmaitcr, filed the complaint.
3. The eontscntion af ‘f:i3__l””:’flbvt¢’V3′
petitioner that there was’ *’
proviso (c) to Sec.138 Ifigtnnncnu
Act, 1881 and masggfbxg, of a
private complaint and the
Pmcwdig 3: to abuse of
pmccss; without mexit. {say
two Demand Drafts were
letters addressed to the
by Aihéihxsclves and nothing more mnot by
suntch ‘V ‘ tion constitute fisctum of payment
V V “of due to the oomphan” am; under two
” Evhjch were sought to be: replaced by the
Drafts. Unkss and until, then: is eomplhnoe of
of the amount of money m the payee and in
this case, the comphinant, within 15 days of the mecipt
of the statutory notice, cannot be said that the petitioner
has mazie out a case thcfihe continuance ofthx:
pxoeeediaags before the JMFC H Court, woukl constitute
M
abuse of process of court. it is needless to state
the pefifimmr has vafiad to ofier, he .
in my opinion, it is not a fit ” ‘4
extraordinazy discretion to
petitiaon stands rejectcd.
% }%3udae 7
csg