IN THE HIGH COURT HAS4'H r_:§ ;A3:\: V':
CRIMINAL PETITION :ii:.=.'~._3¥i2i 6;L@%' -
BETWEEN :
1
A 'Baniig=§lo:_{"*e.;-- 560 032.
Sxiflathaxa Singh,
S/0 late. Ram Singh; _
Aged about 66 years," ~ - 1
R/0.1, Rathan Mahal, "T V V
4&1 Cross, Rattan I,ayo'u.:;L,_ V'
Kaval
R.'1'.Nagar. Posfi ~ V _ fa
Ba11galo.i'e ---_,.E§60" G32 -- ._ A
Smt; Sénggéiitha. '71 V '-
W/ixsriu SiI1g!;t,"-.... - '
Agedxalbcgut 34 '3IE:aIS.._ ,,
R/0. I, " V
4"' Cross, Rathan E'-.i11gh§ Layout,
Kava1By'msa_ridra, '
i~e~}ir.Is;?agar Pos-t,« ..... .. »
L ...PETI'TIONERS
'(By¥V'sri..'za.v§§;;-sa1,.é;:«aj_1»aa
Sxi.'Ba$ava1'&§'&§ Advs.)
-Am):
' Liriusvééain Brothers,
v _,_R'c';'giste1%ed Partnezship firm,
Répmsentcd by its Farmer,
Mr.M.S.Eqba1 Hasaain,
No.35, New Bamboo Bazar,
Bangalcere -- 560 002.
M] s.RatI:1an Condiminimum
Pvt. Limited,
Head Ofice at (3-1 Swiss
-2-
Complex, 33 Race Course
Road, Bangalore - 560 001.
3 ' Sri.R.Amt':r Singh,
S] 0. Sri.Rathan Singh,
Major, Director,
M [ s.Rat11a:n Condiminium
Pvt.Limitcd.
4 Sri.Chara11 Singh,
S] o.Sri.R£tf:han Singh,
Major, Director, T.
M] s.Ratha11 Condinlilliulf'-l_ .V
Pvt.Li1:uitt:t1. "
Respondent No.3 4 *
Residents of '_ V
No.1, Rathan Mahai, 1 .
4*'? Cross, Rathan SiI::gh*!..a' oust, ' " 1,
Kaval Byxaaanéxa, ;R.T,N'agax'P?cst, ' '
§E3anga1or6 - * x _ . s .. RESPONDENTS
(By Szi.f:§}'f1QéifisAV;?§J%;ma'é;':1VVK}§éz§'PatE§iii'.v Adv. for R1 av.
Péoficcvito R2 With)
This ,P§~::fio;;' is filed under Section 432 .c.
praying to quash the' summons/warrant issued by the XV Add}.
_ CJVI. EA}. Bai2ga1or*e" No.32086/2006 by order dated. 10. 12.08
as ag:a;i11$t'AtIi(:.Apei:itioI1ers herein and ease quash the complaint
A V ' V _ the«1fe3p0;1dent.
~. coming on for admission thifii day, the Court
made; the falltjrgviixg:
ORDER
‘ ‘Petitioners are seelcing quashing of the proceedings in
.__ I¥’.C.R.No.6932/2003 new in c:.c:;.No.32o36/2006 pending on the
” 0-fXV Add}.C.M.M., Bangalertz City. % .
.. _(%\K__;
6′ C
2. Respondents have filed a private complaint under
Section 200 of Cr.P.C. for an ofienae punishable Seefion
138 of the Negofiable Instruments Act. The
complainants is that, the petitioner No. 1 is» fiflaeagiilg.
Director and pefitioner No.2 is the inf 1F* ac.r;_’11H3ed,’ – ‘
Company. In the complaint at ‘-is e
that, 13* accused is .91 Pm? ate eiecused is a
Chairman and Managing accused
N033, 4 and 5 are the Dhtctdre
3. Based Magetrate after
considering tiae ‘the material has issues}
summons,
4. the petitioners submits that,
V petiticxi-ger No.1 is”‘r1r: t”1’;¥:1e “Managing Director nor he is a Director.
Pvetitigifzereis also met a Director, they have been probabiy
Director and Director of the 18* accused –
‘ _Com.Ap’au:zy.V.__v’In regard, he sought to rely on the Memorandum
” ” ‘T and Ariricies of Association of the Company to
.5]:-e’w.t1:r’at the Directors’ names mentioned therein do not rcflcct
s {th titioners. ‘
-4-
5. To prove that the petitioner No.1 is the Manamilg
Dimctor of tha Company, which has i$Si1(‘:{Z1 the cheq.u :: ‘a;1d to
prove thai the persons, Wh(i} are incharge anti It:spe;;11$ii;ic L’fé:§f’4the
business. burden is cm the comp}ajnants._ _a:”53 ‘fling’
contenéon of the petitioners is concjérnfid; «that his {he T.
Memorandum and Articles of fi$s0ci;ati<$iz._
regstered in 1977'. The matté1*L:.V::i$ 1l,'[}.V¢.1iiEV3'1'._:fi'i-?1."'i3. m —with the ;):nmedings.
Accmdi;;g1y;.i’~the petition fails and same is dismissed.
Sd/-3
Judge
L’%’v%%””‘;<:§m/~