IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 30th DAY OF MAY 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE WRIT PETITION NO.15440 OF 2019 (GM-RES) BETWEEN:
SRI.H.C. SHANKAR S/O H CHIKKEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS HONNAVARA VILLAGE BINDIGANAVILE HOBLI BINDIGANAVILE HOBLI NAGAMANGALA TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT – 571432.
(By Mr. YATHISH S, ADV.) AND:
M/S SWAMI AYYAPPA STONE CRUSHER GOLLRAHALLI VILLAGE KANTHAPURA POST HONAKERE HOBLI NAGAMANGALA TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT - 571432 REPRESENTED THROUGH ITS PROPRIETOR SMT SAROJAMMA W/O G M CHINNEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS R/O GOLLRAHALLI VILLAGE KANTHAPURA POST HONAKERE HOBLI NAGAMANGALA TALUK – 571432 (By Mr. L RAJA, ADV.) - - -
… PETITIONER … RESPONDENT THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 18.01.2019 IN CRIMINAL PROCEEDING IN C.C.NO.307/2017 AND PERMIT THE PETITIONER/ACCUSED TO FILE HIS OBJECTIONS TO THE INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION U/S 143(A) OF THE NI ACT FILED BY THE RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT ON 22.12.2018 THE FILE OF THE HON’BLE SR. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, AT NAGAMANGALA MANDYA DISTRICT IN PCR NO.301/2017, FILED AGAINST THE PETITIONER FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE U/S 138 OF THE NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENT ACT AT ANNEXURE-A AND ETC.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER Sri.Yathish S., learned counsel for the petitioner. Sri.L.Raja, learned counsel for the respondent.
2. The petition is admitted for hearing. With consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the same is heard finally.
3. In this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the petitioner has assailed the validity of the order dated 18.01.2019 passed by the Magistrate by which Magistrate, on an application filed by the petitioner under Section 143(A) of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, has directed the petitioner to pay 20% of the Cheque amount subject to which the petitioner has been given the right to cross- examine the witnesses of the complainant.
4. When the matter was taken up today, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the aforesaid order has been passed without affording him an opportunity of filing objections to the application which was filed by the respondent. It is further submitted that the application was filed on 22.12.2018. However, the proceeding in the case were adjourned to 18.01.2019 and on the aforesaid date, the impugned order has been passed. Lastly, it is alleged by the learned counsel for the petitioner that he is ready and willing to deposit 10% of the Cheque amount. The aforesaid prayer has not been opposed by the learned counsel for the respondent.
5. In view of the aforesaid submission, the impugned order insofar as it directs the petitioner to deposit 20% of the Cheque amount is hereby quashed. It is directed that the petitioner instead shall deposit 10% of the Cheque amount within a period of 45 days from today before the Trial Court subject to which he shall have the right to cross-examine the respondent.
To the aforesaid extent, the order dated 18.01.2019 passed by the Magistrate is modified.
Accordingly, the petition is disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE RV