IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 23rd DAY OF JULY 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA CRIMINAL PETITION NO.4011 OF 2016 BETWEEN:
SRI N ANAND S/O H NAGARAJ, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS R/AT YOGANANDA NILAYA, 14TH CROSS,B M ROAD, MANGALAWARPET, CHANNARAYAPATNA, RAMANAGARA DIST-571511.
(BY SRI:VINAY.T.R., ADVOCATE AND SMT: ANURADHA URS M D, ADVOCATE) AND SMT C L RUKMINI W/O G R LOKANATH, NO.19, BMR MANSION, RRMR EXTENSION, 2ND CROSS, K H ROAD, BANGALORE-560 027 ... PETITIONER ... RESPONDENT (RESPONDENT- SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 06.02.2016 PASSED IN PCR.NO.57/2012 ON THE FILE OF CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, CHANNAPATNA AND PERMIT THE PETITIONER TO CONTEST THE PRIVATE COMPLAINT ON MERITS.
THIS CRL.P COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
O R D E R Heard learned counsel for petitioner. Respondent is duly served and unrepresented. Perused the records.
2. Petitioner herein filed a private complaint under section 200 Cr.P.C seeking action against the respondent under section 138 of N.I.Act for dishonour of the cheque issued by respondent for Rs.4.00 lakhs. Said proceedings were pending in C.C.No.813/2012 on the file of learned Addl. Civil Judge(Jr.Dn.) and JMFC, Channapatna. During the pendency of the proceedings, complainant as well as respondent filed a joint memo wherein the respondent/accused agreed to pay a sum of Rs.3.00 lakhs in monthly instalment of Rs.10,000/- each. In terms of the said joint memo, the amount was being paid from time to time. In the mean-while, in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in DASHRATH RUPSINGH RATHOD VS STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ANOTHER, (2014) 9 SCC 129, the learned magistrate returned the complaint to the petitioner with a direction to present the same before jurisdictional court within 30 days from the date of said order. The petitioner appears to have failed to present the complaint within 30 days of the said order. However, after introduction of section 142A of N.I. Act, petitioner presented the very same complaint before the court. By order dated 06.02.2016, the learned magistrate closed the case on the ground that the complaint has already been returned to the complainant.
3. It is not in dispute that the Court of Civil Judge and JMFC, Channapatna is the competent court to try the alleged offences in view of section 142A of N.I. Act. Complaint therefore was maintainable before the court except for the delay in re- presentation of the said complaint to the very same Court. Under the said circumstances, without affording an opportunity to the petitioner to explain the delay in re-presentation, the learned magistrate ought not to have closed the matter. Since the Court of Civil Judge & JMFC, Channapatna is having jurisdiction to entertain the complaint and in view of section 142 of the Act, right is available for the petitioner to explain the delay in re- presentation of the case, in my view, the impugned order is liable to be quashed.
Accordingly, the petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 06.02.2016 is quashed. Learned magistrate is directed to receive the complaint and afford an opportunity to the petitioner to explain the cause for the delay in re-presentation of the case and thereafter pass appropriate order in accordance with law.
Petition is disposed of in terms of the above order.
Sd/- JUDGE *mn/-