IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12th DAY OF DECEMBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE Mr. JUSTICE G.NARENDAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO.5123 OF 2019 BETWEEN:
SRI K C PADMARAJ, S/O N K CHANDRAPPA, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, L.P.G GAS CYLINDER DISTRIBUTOR, RESIDING NEAR THAYAMMA TEMPLE, RAMPURA, MOLKALMURU TALUK - 577522, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER (BY SRI SIDDAPPA B M, ADVOCATE) AND:
SRI M VIJAYA KUMAR, S/O KRISHNAMURTHY SHETTY, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, BUSINESSMAN, RESIDING AT J.C.R. EXTENSION, 5TH CROSS, CHITRADURGA-577501. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI G S PATIL, ADVOCATE) **** THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED I ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, CHITRADURGA IN PCR.NO.419/2016 (NOW IT IS NUMBERED AS 1743/2016) DATED 20.10.2016 AND QUASH THE COMPLAINT PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, CHITRADURGA IN C.C.NO.1743/2016 BY ALLOWING THIS PETITION WITH COST.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. The petitioner is before this Court on the short ground that the notice is not issued within 30 days.
2. The case of the petitioner is that the notice issued pursuant to the dishonor of the cheque for insufficient funds is not within the stipulated period of 30 days as per amendment to clause (b) of the provisions of Section 138 of the N.I. Act.
3. The learned counsel would invite the attention of the Court to para 4 of the complaint and contend that as per the complaint the cheque has been presented for encashment on 25.5.2016 and cheque has been returned to the complainant on the same day with the endorsement dated 25.05.2016 and hence the notice issued on 24.06.2016 prima facie is contrary to the mandate of the statute and being beyond 30 days the same vitiates the proceedings and prays to allow the petition.
4. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent would submit that the complaint has been amended and that the actual date on which the dishonored cheque was returned to the complainant was 27.05.2016 and this fact has been brought to the notice of the Court and on the leave of the Court the complaint has been amended.
5. In response the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the same is correct and that he has called that in question before this Court in another petition. If that be the case, this Court is constrained to observe that the petitioner’s counsel attempted to mislead the Court by suppressing the fact of amendment of the complaint by correcting the date of knowledge of dishonor. Hence the attempt by the counsel to further take this Court through the judgment of this Court reported in 2015 (2) KCCR 1754 was a sheer waste of judicial time. The conduct of the counsel cannot be appreciated. Hence the petition is dismissed with cost of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only). The cost shall be payable within two weeks from today, failing which the Registrar General to initiate appropriate proceedings to recover the same. The cost to be deposited into the Chief Ministers Calamity Relief Fund.
Ordered accordingly.
Sd/- JUDGE ykl