IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF AUGUST 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA CRIMINAL PETITION NO.7121 OF 2016 BETWEEN SRI S M NARAYANAN S/O T MAGUDAPATHY AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS 7772, DEER TRAIL LANE MEMPHIS, TN 38133 U.S.A. ... PETITIONER (By Sri. HARISH N R, ADVOCATE) AND 1. SRI JAYASHANKAR S S/O SUNDAR RAJAN AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS R/O NO.514/2, K.R.GARDEN OPP. N.D.D.B. KORAMANGALA 8TH BLOCK BENGALURU - 560 095 2. IDL EXPRESS NO.84/1, 1ST FLOOR 3RD CROSS, 3RD BLOCK 1ST STAGE, HBR LAYOUT BENGALURU - 560 043 3. SRI S M RAJMOHAN S/O T MAGUDAPATHY AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS NO.309, BALAJI KRIPA LAYOUT 4TH CROSS, 1ST PHASE HEGDE NAGAR BENGALURU - 560 045 4. SRI G K ANANDRAO S/O G R KUPPAJIRAO AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS R/O NO.10, 4TH B CROSS MUNISWAMY REDDY LAYOUT OLD MANJUNATHA LAYOUT RAMAMURTHY NAGAR BENGALURU - 560 016 ... RESPONDENTS (By Sri S P SATHISHA, ADVOCATE FOR R1 R2 & R3 ARE SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED Sri S. VENKATESH AITHAL, ADVOCATE FOR R4) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST PETITIONER PENDING ON THE FILE OF XIX A.C.M.M., BENGALURU IN C.C.NO.1538/2015 BY ALLOWING THIS PETITION.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER Heard learned counsel for petitioner, learned counsel for respondent No.1, learned counsel for respondent No.4 and perused the records.
2. Petitioner/accused No.4 is prosecuted for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (‘NI Act’ for short) as the partner of accused No.1-firm.
3. Learned counsel for petitioner contends that the petitioner has not subscribed his signature on the memorandum of understanding and the partnership deed. Petitioner is only a working partner. However, learned counsel for the respondents have pointed out that, accused No.3 retired from the said firm by executing a Retirement Deed dated 29.07.2013 and in terms of the said deed, accused No.2 and the present petitioner (accused No.4) are continuing as partners.
4. In view of these disputed facts, the trial having already reached the fag end before the Trial Court and accused No.1 is already been examined as DW.1, it is not proper to interfere in the matter at this stage. Hence, keeping open all the legal and factual contentions urged in this petition for consideration of the Trial Court, the petition is dismissed.
Sd/- JUDGE cp*