IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF MAY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA CRIMINAL PETITION NO.5455 OF 2013 C/W CRIMINAL PETITION NO.5456 OF 2013 BETWEEN:
Madhu Steel Corporation # 5 & 6, Millia Building N.R.Road, 2nd Cross Bangalore – 560 002 Rep by Sri.Vijay Prakash Gupta Family Member of the HUF Manager of HUF business & POA of the Karta of HUF. …Petitioner (Common) (By Sri.Suhas P., for Sri.Ravikumar M.C., Advocates) AND:
1. Mrs.Upasana Mittal CEO & Executive Director 2. Mr.M.Lokaraj Director – HR 3. Mrs.Hema Lokaraj W/o M.Lokaraj Director 4. Mrs.Shashikala Venugopal
(Vide order dated 29.9.15, service of notice to R1 to R5 is held sufficient in Crl.P No.5455/2013) Crl.P.No.5455/2013 is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. praying to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.20105/2010 being illegally conducted after its disposal vide order dated 31.07.2012 on the file of the XV A.C.M.M., Bangalore.
Crl.P.No.5456/2013 is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. praying to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.20107/2010 being illegally conducted after its disposal vide order dated 31.07.2012 on the file of the XV A.C.M.M., Bangalore.
Crl.P.No.5455/2013 coming on for Hearing and Crl.P.No.5456/2013 coming on for Admission, this day, the Court made the following:
O R D E R Petitioner has sought to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.20105/2010 and C.C.No.20107/2010 on the ground that the said proceedings are illegally conducted after the final order dated 31.07.2012.
2. The material on record would disclose that the petitioner herein filed a complaint under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act against the respondents. The said matter was referred to Lok-Adalath and in view of the compromise entered into between the complainant and the accused persons, the case was closed as settled before the Lok-Adalath vide order dated 22.12.2011. However, the said order was challenged before this Court in Criminal Petition No.3261/2012 and by order dated 27.06.2012, this Court in Paras 3 and 4 thereof directed as under:-
“3. Learned trial judge has found that the compromise was entered into only by accused No.5, and others have not compromised. Accordingly, he has proceeded with the trial against the remaining accused. Considering this I find there is no infirmity in the said proceedings before the trial court. But the Lok Adalat while passing the order has literally imposed the sentence against all the accused for which it has no jurisdiction. The order sheet also shows that the accused No.5 shall pay the amount to the complainant. In view of the same, the order dated 29.06.2010 stands modified as it is only applicable to the accused No.5 insofar as other accused are concerned, the trial shall go on.
4. If the accused No.5 is aggrieved by the order of the Lok Adalat, it is open for him to avail remedy before appropriate forum.”
3. In view of this order, the trial is required to be proceeded against other accused except accused No.5. Hence, I do not find any grounds to quash the proceedings. As a result, the petitions are dismissed.
In view of the dismissal of the main petitions, I.A.No.1/2013 filed in Crl.P No.5456/2013 do not survive for consideration and the same is dismissed.
Sd/- JUDGE Prs*