High Court Karnataka High Court

Sbee Cables (India) Limited vs M/S Power Electricals on 20 September, 2010

Karnataka High Court
Sbee Cables (India) Limited vs M/S Power Electricals on 20 September, 2010
Author: C.R.Kumaraswamy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 20?" DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2010

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. 3USTICE C.R. KuMARAswA:MY;..',; 

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.3S98{2_Q_LQ .  A

BETWEEN:

1.

SBEE Cables (India) Limited,
No.29, ECW Industrial Estate,
11*?’ KM, Kanakapura Road,
Bangalore–560 062, ‘
Represented by its
Managing Director, V
Sri. S.Bhawarla|.

2. Sri. S.Bh.awar’l’al,;5 _v ., _
Major in age,–. ‘ . ”

The Managing ‘Dire-<:tor_,jf ._
SBEE Cables"(India)'L._irraita-2dg,"_;~
No.29, JCW Industrial:-Estvate'",
__11"' KM Kainakapur.agRoac:,
Banga-l«ore+_S.60~«§362. """ Petitioners

(l3yV'S._i_r_i'." (PA. and C0,, Advocates)

it 'i-AN D :

— ~ s. Poweriflectricals,

* Hayinxgiizs Office at
‘ ..,;\io;,27/1; 30″‘ Cross,
__ijIg_alli.l<arara Sangha Building,
4"' Biock, Jayanagar,

-«,B’a”n”gal0re«S6O 011.

Represented by its Proprietor and
Authorized Signatory,
Sri.H.R.Krishnamurthy.

2. Sri. H.R.Krishnamurthy,
Proprietor,
M/s. Power Electricals,
No.27/1, 30″‘ Cross,
Hailikarara Sangha Building,
4″‘ Biock, Jayanagar, ‘
Bangaiore–S60 011. V Re,sponde.ntsV ‘~

(By Sri. H.N. Srinivasa, Advocate for’i–E§2,i.
R1 — served)

This Criminal Petition is’«.fi.E’e_d ‘under”:’5ettt’i’on 482 of Code of
Criminal Procedure praying to qt;.ia’shi-tile”orde-r_’on1.A. filed under
Section 311 of Code..of Criminai P-roceduregeated 14.6.2010
passed by the XV_I. ~A_dd.itioinal, Chief’Mjetropjolitan Magistrate,
Bangalore in C.C.i\ioi-_.,v13,4″‘ U09. and a|_l.owVthe”petition.

This crimiiial ,iPetit-ion ,.i’s-.§:o’mi’a1g on for admission this day
the Court made the follVo*w_ing:’~.._,_

X A *CRbER
Petit’i’on”‘is filed under Section 482 of Code of

piragying to quash the order on I.A. fiied under

:11-..Section’A311 of Criminai Procedure dated 14.6.2010

by the XVI Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate,

C.C.I\io.13407/09 and allow the petition.

3/

absent several times in the Court below. However taking into

consideration that the Court has to do substantiai justiceévalh’-d_:’n.ot

to give too much importance to technicalities, in

ends of justice wiii be met if the cost ofits10,0€)'(3;,..,_:’1iiSEhiposedvlé ”

on the accused and the same shaii be Zpaidtl-itothe_.c’onfip|’aVE:r:i.ant,r_it

Subject to payment of costs of Rs. J’0,:f__l00/¥’,r-accusedyi%.ii’.’..naye an *

opportunity to cross-examine PW~1 Courtiieloyv. case if
the accused does not pay costs; “~h_e.fiwilI not have an
opportunity to cross~examine….P1li/&V..1.’–. _:Afte’:f ‘cross~examination,

the trial Court site/ifiiegiyeit”ant topp.e;tpeityr”oi for the defence

evidence, if alnylvby*~ Accused shall pay the costs to
the complainant on theV_.1’t§’date:”of’*hearing as soon as this order
is transmitted to the.:vCou’rt beloyv. With these observations, this

Criniinaél Pei’iti.on isidisposéd bf.

3&9!/6
J'{.$GE