IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF JULY 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE P.S.DINESH KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO.28455 OF 2019 (GM – RES) BETWEEN:
M.C.KUMARASWAMY AGED 64 YEARS R/S. A-022 BEARY’S LAKE SIDE HABITAT NO.18 SHATHIVANA BANGALORE 560 092 (PARTY IN PERSON) EMAIL:Kswamy07@gmail.com (MOBILE 9686408108) …PETITIONER (BY SHRI. M.C.KUMARASWAMY, (PARTY-IN-PERSON)) AND:
MRS. SPURTHI SUNIL SURPUR MAJOR C/O. MR.SUNIL SURPUR NO.191/1 SHUBHPRADA 1ST CROSS KURBARAHALLI ROAD MAHALAKSHMIPURAM BANGALORE 560 086 MOBILE 9844129811 EMAIL: spusurpur@gmail.com ALSO AT MRS. SPURTHI SUNIL SURPUR MAJOR C/O. DR.JAMES B.REILLY M.D PROGRAM DIRECTOR ALLGEHENY NET WORK HOSPITALS INTERNAL MEDICINE RESIDENCY 320, EAST NORTH AVENUE PISTUSBURG. PA15212 (USA) … RESPONDENT THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA READ WITH SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ENTIRE ERRONEOUS PROCEEDINGS DATED 11.06.2019 OF THE LEARNED JUDGE OF 6TH ASCJ AND 31ST ACCM BENGALURU P.C.R.NO.1706/2019 IN C.C.NO.2053/2019 ANNEXURE-D (CERTIFIED COPY OF THE COURT PROCEEDINGS) AND TO ORDER TO CONDUCT THE FRESH PROCEEDINGS IN THE CASE GIVING AN OPPORTUNITY TO THE PETITIONER TO THE PRESENT BEFORE THE COURT DURING THE PROCEEDINGS AND ETC., THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER Heard Shri M.C.Kumaraswamy, party-in-person. He has initiated proceedings under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, against the respondent pursuant to dishonor of cheque issued by respondent.
2. Petitioner’s grievance is that the respondent had appeared before the Court on 25.04.2019. On the said day, learned advocate for the respondent/accused filed memo of appearance on behalf of the accused and an application under Section 205 of Cr.P.C., seeking exemption from personal appearance of accused. Learned Magistrate has allowed the application and adjourned the case to 25.06.2019. However, accused got the case preponed to 11.06.2019 without notice to the complainant and on the said date accused appeared before the Court and obtained the bail. Petitioner’s case is that notice of preponement of the case to 11.06.2019 has reached him subsequently. Hence, the entire proceedings on 11.06.2019 is vitiated. The next grievance of the petitioner is that learned Magistrate has enlarged the accused on bail subject to accused executing a bail bond for a sum of Rs.5,000/- though the cheque amount is sum of Rs.11,00,000/-. Therefore, granting bail to the accused on a bail bond of Rs.5,000/- is erroneous. Accordingly, he prays for appropriate directions to the learned Magistrate to cancel the bail order.
3. Sofar as first grievance is concerned, that the accused had appeared before the trial Court on 11.06.2019 by advancing the case and obtained the bail, it is fairly well settled that accused can seek advancement of the case keeping in view the urgency of the case. It is the discretion of learned Magistrate to permit the matter to take on board on any date prior to the date of hearing.
4. Sofar as the bail condition is concerned, it is a discretionary order that if the bail conditions are violated by the respondent/accused, the petitioner/complainant is at liberty to move learned Magistrate seeking appropriate directions.
Hence, both grounds urged by the party-in- person are untenable. Resultantly, this petition fails and it is accordingly dismissed.
No costs.
Sd/-
JUDGE HJ