IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA CRIMINAL PETITION NO.1599/2013 BETWEEN:
MR.T.P.HITHENDRA S/O PARAMASHIVAPPA AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS R/O HULLAHALLI VILLAGE DONIGAL POST SAKALESHPURA TALUK HASSAN DISTRICT – 573 201 ... PETITIONER (BY SRI.ABUBACKER SHAFI, ADV.) AND:
MR.A.M.SUDHEER S/O MUTHEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS R/O AVAREKADU VILLAGE HANUBALU HOBLI SAKALESHPURA TALUK HASSAN DISTRICT – 573 201 ... RESPONDENT THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE/QUASH THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ADDL.S.J AND P.O., FTC-I, HASSAN IN CRL.RP.NO.186/12, DATED:8.01.13 AND IN CONSEQUENCE SET ASIDE/QUASH THE ORDER PASSED ON THE APPLICATION FILED U/S 203 CR.P.C. DATED:12.10.12 IN C.C.NO.68/2009 PENDING BEFORE THE CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, SHAKALELSHPURA.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.
2. The only contention urged by the petitioner is that this Court had directed the JMFC Court at Holenarasipura to return the complaint to the respondent herein (complainant) to present the same before the Jurisdictional Magistrate.The respondent received the complaint on 20.06.2008 and presented the same before the JMFC (Jr.Dn.) at Shakaleshpura only on 30.06.2008 i.e., after a delay of ten days.
3. It is contended that in view of the order passed by the learned Magistrate, Holenarasipuar, the complainant ought to have presented the compliant within 24 hours from the date of receiving the complaint.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not pointed out any provision of law which requires the complainant to present the petition within 24 hours from the date of receiving the complaint. The complaint has been presented within reasonable time. Moreover, the application filed under Section 203 of Cr.P.C. for dismissal of the complaint has been dismissed on the ground that the accused has taken more than 1 ½ years to submit his argument. On the said technical ground, the complainant cannot be deprived of his legal right to present the complaint under Section 138 of NI Act. No injustice has been caused to the parties on account of the impugned order warranting interference of this Court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. Hence, I do not find any reason to admit the petition.
Accordingly, the petition is dismissed.
In view of dismissal of the petition, I.A.No.1/2013 does not survive for consideration. Hence, the same is dismissed.
Sd/- JUDGE VM