IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2017 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR CRIMINAL PETITION No. 7738 OF 2017 BETWEEN:
SRI. V.C.MANJUNATH S/O. LATE CHINNA SWAMY, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, R/AT NO.1/1, 2ND MAIN, PUTTAYANNA PALYA, JAYANAGAR 9TH BLOCK, JAYANAGAR EAST, BENGALURU SOUTH, BENGALURU-560069. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. NANJUNDA GOWDA M.R., ADVOCATE) AND:
SRI. A.S.BANGARU KULDEEP S/O. LATE A.V.SURESH BABU, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, R/AT NO.”LAKSHMISREE” DODDABOMMASANDRA, VIDYARANYAPURA POST, BENGALURU-560097. …RESPONDENT THIS CRL.P FILED UNDER SECTION 482 CR.P.C., PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.55221/2015 WHICH IS PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE LVIII A.C.M.M., MAYOHALL UNIT, BANGALORE AND ETC.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER Heard the petitioner’s counsel.
2. This is a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Petitioner has sought to quash the entire proceedings in C.C.No.55221/2015 on the file of the XIV Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru, on the ground that there was no proper service of notice as required under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. His contention is that he is not residing in the address written on the postal cover. Whether the petitioner resides there or not or whether there is proper service of notice or not, is a matter to be established before the trial Court. It is a question of fact.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of TOMY JACOB KATTIKKARAN Vs. Dr. THOMAS MANJALY AND ANOTHER reported in (1997) 11 SCC 24 to argue that this Court can quash the proceedings if it is demonstrated that there was no proper service of notice. But on going through this judgment, it is clearly forthcoming that trial was held in the said case it was established that there was no proper service of notice.
4. Therefore, I do not find any merit to admit this petition. It is accordingly dismissed.
5. In view of dismissal of the criminal petition itself, I.A.1/2017 filed for stay does not survive for consideration, hence dismissed.
Sd/- JUDGE NG*