Judgments
Judgments
  1. Home
  2. /
  3. High Court Of Karnataka
  4. /
  5. 2019
  6. /
  7. January

Chandrashekar vs M/S Maruti Suzuki India Limited And Others

High Court Of Karnataka|16 January, 2019
|

JUDGMENT / ORDER

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K. NATARAJAN CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.26 OF 2018 Between:
Chandrashekar S/o Nanjappa, Aged about 45 years, Residing at Flat No.202, Bharath Residency, No.2, 3rd Main, Vinayaka Layout, II Stage, 9th Block, Near MG Park, Nagarabhavi, Bengaluru – 560 072. ... Petitioner (By Sri Chandrashekar, Party-in-person) And:
1. M/s. Maruti Suzuki India Limited Represented by its Service Manager, Office Address No.204, 2nd Floor, Embassy Classic, Vittal Malya Road, Bengaluru – 560 001.
2. M/s. Maruti Suzuki India Limited A Company registered under the Companies Act, 1956 having its registered office at Plot No.1, Nelson Mandela Road, Vasanth Kunj, New Delhi – 110 070. Rep. by its Territorial Service Manager.
3. M/s. Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., Represented by its Managing Director, Head Office Address:
No.1, Nelson Mandela Road, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi – 110 070.
4. M/s. Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., Represented by its Chief Executive Officer (CEO), Head Office Address:
No.1, Nelson Mandela Road, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi – 110 070.
5. M/s. RNS Motors Ltd Represented by its Managing Director, Address:No.2275, Tumkur Main Road, Goraguntepalya, Yeshwanthpur, Bengaluru – 560 022.
6. M/s. RNS Motors Ltd Represented by its Chief Executive Officer (CEO), Address:No.2275, Tumkur Main Road, Goraguntepalya, Yeshwanthpur, Bengaluru – 560 022.
7. The State of Karnataka By its Dabaspet Police Station, Bengaluru Rural District. ... Respondents (By Sri S. Shaker Shetty, Advocate for R-1, Sri S.T. Naik, HCGP for R-7 Vide Court Order dated 16.01.2019 R-2 to R-4 deleted Petition against R-5 and R-6 deleted vide Court Order dated 04.06.2018) This Criminal Revision Petition is filed under Section 397 read with Section 401 Cr.P.C. praying to set aside the impugned order dated 12.02.2015 which is produced herewith and marked as Annexure-A by restoring the case with the direction to the trial Court to proceed with the trial by impleading and arraying respondent Nos.2 to 6 herein as co-accused in the said case as proper and necessary parties in accordance with law.
This Criminal Revision Petition coming on for Orders, this day the Court made the following:
ORDER Learned Government Advocate accepts notice on behalf of respondent No.7.
2. On a perusal of the order sheet of this Court dated 06.12.2018 and the order sheet of the trial Court, it is seen that the proceedings against respondent No.1 came to be dropped only on the basis of non-execution of NBW. After dropping of the proceedings against respondent No.1 before the trial Court, the trial Court issued date-less NBW to the accused/respondent No.1. However, this Court, in Crl.P.No.1767/2011, had stayed the further proceedings of the said case and after dropping of the proceedings by the trial Court, this Court has dismissed the criminal petition as it had become infructuous. But, respondent No.1 herein not at all intimated to this Court in respect of issuance of NBW and dropping of the proceedings by the trial Court. However, the fact remains that the NBW issued by the trial Court has not been executed. However, the accused/respondent No.1 (petitioner in Crl.P. No.1767/2011) has already been granted bail by the trial Court and when the further proceedings are stayed by this Court, the question of issuing NBW does not arise unless the order of stay granted by this Court is vacated.
3. Based upon the submission and dropping of the proceedings by the Magistrate, Criminal Petition No.1767/2011 came to be dismissed as infructuous. As of now, the proceedings are dropped by the trial Court, which is under challenge. Even though this Court stayed the further proceedings, the trial Court ought not to have dropped the proceedings against respondent No.1/accused on the ground of non-execution of warrant, which is apparently illegal and impropriety. Therefore, the order under revision requires to be set aside and remanded back to the trial Court to proceed in accordance with law.
4. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Petition is disposed off. The order dated 12.02.2015 passed by the Magistrate in C.C.No.444/2010 is set aside and the matter is remanded to the Trial Court to proceed in accordance with law.
Sd/- JUDGE MBM/KTY
Disclaimer: Above Judgment displayed here are taken straight from the court; Vakilsearch has no ownership interest in, reservation over, or other connection to them.
Title

Chandrashekar vs M/S Maruti Suzuki India Limited And Others

Court

High Court Of Karnataka

JudgmentDate
16 January, 2019
Judges
  • K Natarajan