IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR WRIT PETITION No.9043/2019 (GM RES) BETWEEN:
SRI. ALLURI KRISHNA REDDY, MANAGING DIRECTOR, AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, SENIOR CITIZEN BENEFIT NOT CLAIMED, A.K.R. CONSTRUCTION LTD. OFFICE PLOT NO.8-2-684/J3, BHAVANI NAGAR COLONY, KANAKADURGA TEMPLE LANE, ROD NO.12, BANJARA HILLS, HYDERABAD-560034. … PETITIONER (BY SRI. AJAY PRABHU.M. ADV.
ON BEHALF OF SRI. SACHIN B.S. ADV.) AND:
M/S. SRI. VIJAYALAKSHMI STEEL HOUSE, A REGISTERED PARTNERSHIP FIRM, HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT B.D. ROAD, BANTWAL TALUK, D.K. DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNER MRS. SHOBHA S. PRABHU, W/O M. SHRINATH PRABHU, AGE: MAJOR, R/AT ROOM NO.504, 5TH FLOOR, AMBAR CITADEL, SULTHAN BATHERY ROAD, URVA MARKET, MANGALORE-575001. ... RESPONDENT THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA R.W SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C, 1973 PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 27.12.2018 IN PCR NO.354 OF 2015 ON THE FILE OF JMFC (V COURT), MANGALORE D.K. AS PER ANNEXURE-A, ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ‘PRELIM INARY HEARING’ THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER Heard Sri. Ajay Prabhu .M, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Sri. Sachin B.S. counsel for the petitioner.
2. Order dated 27.12.2018 passed in PCR No.354/2015 by the JMFC (V Court) Mangalore D.K. vide Annexure-A condoning the delay in filing the complaint against petitioner/accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act (for short ‘NI Act’) has been called in question.
3. It is the contention of Sri. Ajay Prabhu, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that learned trial judge has committed a serious error in condoning the delay and not considering the fact that reason assigned by complainant is vague and no sufficient cause whatsoever is forthcoming from the affidavit filed in support of said application. Even total number of days of delay in filing the complaint has not been stated and as such, impugned order is liable to be quashed.
4. Perusal of the impugned order would disclose that cause shown for delay in filing the complaint as explained by the complainant in paragraphs 2 and 3 of the affidavit is to the effect that complaint was initially filed before the same court on 14.11.2014 and learned Magistrate refused to register the case on account of Indian Penal Code Sections having been included in the complaint. Thereafter respondent/complainant has been prosecuting his claim by filing a suit in O.S. 182/2014 before civil Court and on account of such confusion having been created, there has been a delay in filing the PCR for the offence punishable under Section 138 of NI Act. The said explanation has been rightly accepted by the learned trial judge in exercise of power vested under proviso to Section 142(b) of NI Act. The discretionary power exercised by the learned trial judge to condone the delay for cogent reasons would not call for interference at the hands of this court in exercise of extradinary jurisdiction vested under Article 226 of Constitution of India. There is no other good ground to entertain this petition.
Accordingly, writ petition stands rejected.
SD/- JUDGE Chs* CT-HR