High Court Karnataka High Court

Sadashiva Rao vs Gopal on 18 November, 2008

Karnataka High Court
Sadashiva Rao vs Gopal on 18 November, 2008
Author: N.Ananda
IN THE HIGH coum op KARNATA:«;;I5;' % ;;M_f f  _

cmcurr BENCH AT DHARW!:B,--'<.:'::   % V V
DATED THIS THE 13111 DAY   
THE HONBLE MR.JLr§rzcE NLAn;§;§DA}
CRIMINAL. 
BETWEEN: 'J M% M  "   } 

 

Szi Sadashivafiao --
S/o.Vasudevs3_ Ran" V . 3
Aged about."F{}" V
R/at No.87?/Df_  V
HAL III,stagé=..%_ '  V _
80 fect,'mad"~ _  .4  --

Banga}pre~._t'§6O G'?+'3,_ * _   ' '  PE'l'I'I'IO£\¥ER

(By 811'. .1\;!a!§;;Adv.,)

  %      

 ._.S]  

Age" 50 yeazfs ._ 
Pensioner '

R] 0.}! .190, 164, T m

« . ..  - .. « .. _' ' V ..Housin"g Co-opcxative Society
" 4 "  .. Respondent

‘ tgygfi-1 Sriharsh A.Ncc£opa11t, A-dv.,)

This criminal petition is filcd under section 482

“xCr.P.C. praying to quash the compiaint/pmccedings in
” C.C.No.487/04 {PCR.No.3057/O3) on the fik: of the CJM,

Dharwad.

This criminal petition coming on for
the Court made the following: _ :

This pctitiaan is filed L’
No.48’7/ 2004 pending trial fo{5n§Lea*;n§¢% under
scction 138 of the __Act, on the fik: of
the Chicfdudicigl ~

2. that the cheques
were of Karnataka Financiai
was the Chanw of the
Karnataks; Limited. He was not looking

V. afitjr§lfl1g;jAV’day-to¥¢ia3*—management of the said Company and
act in -k:h_z_argc of the financial transactions of the said

continuation of proceedings before the

V V –‘ be abuse ofproocss oflaw.

V. It is submitted that this Court afficzt consfl ering

V’ questions in €3r1..P.Nos.3-<18, 349 as 350/2005 has

'4 quashed the p ' thcztin. E / L
" S N { p/vv\– 4

: 3 :
After going through the contents of the I

find one Gopal, respondent herein, had filed _

section 200 Cr.P.C. against the petitioner ..

petitioner heIein—-Chair.:na33 of L_he

Sexvices Limited, is arrayed as__2″” ,

the complaint that accused pzesent
pefitioner) are the are no
averments in the us cr1m1na3′ ‘

liability on t11e”ggeiitio:i;1er.g flin reported in 2007

SCW hekl, in oztier to invoke
pmvisioee Instnlments Act, the

persons/iiioexd V who are inxcharge and

fo.i”‘tEz€r…_QQ31duct of business of the Company as

‘ Va:3:_ti1c’ of the Company couid alone be arrayed as

txial Juadg without noticing these

and the bar contained in Sec.142 of the

fiegotieiike Instruments Act has taken cowizaawe and

issuance of pmcess to petitioner in terms of the

” impuped order. Therefore, there is bar to continue the

proceedings against petitioner] accused before the tria} court.

A2′ id/gt:/I£>~»u(,

3. In the result, petition is

proceedings in ac No.-187/2004 as they mm

(accused No.2) pending on the
Magistrate, Dhaxwad, am quashed. ‘ ‘ A ‘

” Ettdge

Sub*