Smt Sharada Balakrishna vs Mr Dinesh D Jain on 17 March, 2008

'_l.

Il'TEE flIEE.CDfllT DI IIflllTIll.flf IIIGILOIE

rA-mn THI5 was 1?" WA: 9E_,__.,
aawoas

THE HflN'BLE nn. JUSTIGE K.sHnKfHAvAtsAgfi* -

aR1uINAL PETITfiGNfHa;2B32f§fl0§\_'g 

BETWEEN

_..w--------...--.---

1 SET flfififlhflflzfifihfifififéfififi,
Wfm K.V.HKLfiKRJSHEA,% &_W 
REA nnITvn,sa:vnq?awHjmA@AR,

'Hh33AH. _m_ ;
_A', :' ' FETITIONER

(av fififi fifi:a'n3q a sax M sufifinnamx, Anvs.)

...'.-nun.-.5 _.'..,g.

1: MR niME3H.n JAIN

'firm nA;LI,cHHANn M JAIN,

FRflE;HfS vnnnmmnn TELECUM.
__ _flUBHHfiHm$muAHE,
=A wassnm-573 201.

--- HESPQHDEHT

(B? 333 H K MANUHAR, Anv.)

 %HIS CRJMIHKL PETITION Ifi FILED UfS.48€

flR$P.fl B? THE fiD?flCATE Ffl THE PETITIflfiER ?RRYIH

., THET THI$ HflN'BLE BBURT MAY BE FLEASED To QUASH
'1THE ENTIRE PRDCEEDINGS E$NfitNG on THE F:LE 0? THE
"2!-II: .Iu:IIiL.I::.J.::JR.Dl!i.:I -at -."IMFC-LII COURT HASSAI-I IN

FUR MU.3§1f2Dfl2 (CC N0.9B9f2004§ AGAINST THE
HBDUEED ND.3. '

'ml 5 CRIMIHAL PETE TIDE I CPHI ME ON FOR
RDHISEIDM, THIS nnv, THE EDGE? HA£E THE
L

FQL QEIHQ:



lb.)

The 9ititi-ner-agcuaed _9;3*, 1

my 1'

C ..I.:.I'-'i'fI'.:..EE"9;'2

C3

04 an the filé cf~2thafvJ%EfiéII

Court at Haaaan, is bafqge thi$"Eéurt,"prayinq;

fox quafihing tha preaaédingafi

E. Learned c§gflael  foi~.the_5petitiemar

sLbmita that thé.:haqué in queatign ha- bgan
#, .._...J..!..._.I J_-_1
Q.lVlQ.ufl.L

iaauafl by §hHgfir§t a§;fi5E€ ifi his i
caizneugi   Ell?-5~   Partner of the
pggtfifigfiflig fiffi Rig: Gfiteway Suvarna Arcade
&nd,'@fi$rtftfxfid "that the cumplaint doas not

.;1iaa;::;,1..:.~sVa'~.;a,e=;%vf+;a;: %'Lf;mfiv the liability that can be

_jfa£t%n£d, an the yrnaa"+ getitiener-accused

q--n.u..(-w.r-an-n.

"._ nm»3, a Therafore. it is sontended tn'fi fihe

 -;ré$§@nfléht-cmmplainant has not made nut a

  p£im&;famia case fan tha offence under Saation

' '+,.i38 mfi the Negotiable Instruments Act.

13. .He zaapendent "as filad p:i-ate
anmplnint against His. fiateway fiuvarna Arfiaué

and fan: af its partners. The present
I

L;



__vL .V  _. . I
-;hten ¢fi$fl%d by the pattnetahip flrm _m

patitionmr is accused na.3. The xarcx copy at

1
1

-h. aheque beariflg No,5?7BDé dated, §;9.ZO02

Hi
i

fl" u fiflm cf fl5.5G,GflGf*, as par.3*fiaxu:afiFC?,

raveala. that the chequ§M_drawfi"*§fi, thE_'VQEyfi3L

Bank Ltc1.., I-Ianssan; -an"5.121-;:'sé'c;--z;d;§-5'3'G[j"t-._gypéar5-.5

tn have baan 3igpadx=_EyV =§¢cu5gdJ nati-

3.S.Raviahankar and Riaaued ain ffavour of

E'*'a_r:3.11am».a.n's 1w;=.=;1I:.a.:__m; 'Illa mt; vy_,g

fin

.|...__
F3

'5
'<
P»
1'1?'
U!
*-J
{II
£1!'
1'1!'
GI
HI
{IL

Eankp Hamfian:VErénéh,f ;;
10.5 ._ :s.L3:.m' gi1fj:'::1;ua.t.-5:': « M  s .3 .311' c No. 9530

atagda in tht ntfis ti fiii B.S.Raviahanka:.

'w§;Vvt5inte thh cheque in queation has not

1.

m’-m1-i”

…..g. ..

‘=t ftwm that the petitionar has not signed tha

ttgafitfiuet fiat uasponsihla far paymant of the

“*mh§qué in quaatian, it cannot be said that a

“=»aytima facie caaa 13 made nut as against the

‘tyraaent patitionarfacauaad no.3 flan the

fifffimflfi under Eacticwa 133 sf tut INegoti&bl~

I}!

instruments fiat. Tharefiara, the petitioner i5

entitled to aucceed.
\

L\_#,,fl

P5. In the result, the petition is:

allcnz-2.5.”; the pgcacmagii gas in C.(;.,VIV_<i'»::_ .T8_B9!04

' I
quashed. \
I
mzp a'- -'
.. 'r.. .3 N.'
Juuua