IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF MARCH 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO.5741/2019 (GM-RES) BETWEEN:
Sri K Krishnaraja Saralaya, Aged about 86 Years, S/o late K L Saralaya, R/o Paniyadi, Udupi-576102. ... Petitioner (By Sri. Nataraja Ballal A, Advocate) AND:
1. Sri Rajaram Khandige Aged about 66 Years, S/o late Dr. K.K.Bhat, No.28, 5th Block, 5th Cross, Koramangala, Bengaluru-34.
2. Inter Active Infonet Limited No.13, Krishna Reddy Layout, Domlur, Bengaluru-71.
Rep. by its Director. ... Respondents This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure praying to quash the order dated 11.08.2016 (Annexure-F) in Crl.A.25010/2015 on the file of 57th ACC & S.J. Mayohall Unit and etc.
This Writ Petition coming for Preliminary Hearing on this day, the Court made the following:
O R D E R Heard Sri. Nataraja Ballal.A, learned counsel appearing for petitioner. Perused the records.
2. Petitioner herein filed a complaint under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 against respondent Nos.1 and 2 alleging that they had committed an offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I.Act. Said proceedings came to be concluded by judgment dated 27/12/2014, Annexure-A, whereunder respondents herein came to be convicted and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one year and accused No.2 i.e., respondent No.1 herein was directed to pay compensation of Rs.7,00,000/- to complainant towards the loss suffered by him, in default of the aforesaid compensation, accused No.2 was directed to further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months.
3. Being aggrieved by the same, accused No.2 preferred an appeal in Crl.A.No.25010/2015, which is pending before the 57th Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Mayo Hall Unit, Bengaluru. Notice having been ordered in the said appeal against respondents, petitioner herein who is respondent No.1 (in criminal appeal) has appeared and contested the matter. On account of steps having not been taken against respondent No.2 (in criminal appeal), appeal came to be dismissed on 19/03/2016. Said order has not yet been recalled or set aside. The Appellate Court has ordered for issuance of notice to respondent No.2 by order dated 11/08/2016 and as such, the petitioner is before this Court seeking for quashing of the said order.
4. When the appeal against respondent No.2 having been already dismissed and the said order having not been recalled, the question of issuance of notice to respondent No.2 does not arise at all. That apart, respondent No.2 having also been convicted and there be an order of sentence having been passed against accused No.1-respondent No.2 herein, there was no need or necessity for issuance of notice for which the appeal is said to have been protracted. Hence, learned Appellate Judge shall take note of the aforestated facts and pass an order on the memo dated 05/12/2015, Annexure-C said to have been filed by writ petitioner herein expeditiously, within two weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.
Accordingly, petition stands disposed of.
SD/- JUDGE SMJ