Sri. P.V. Manoharan vs Sri. P. Vijayalakshmi

H.S. Kempanna

The petitioner is before this court u/s 482 of Cr.P.C. challenging the order dated 26.12.2011 passed in C.C. No. 20085/1998 by the XXth Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore City, dismissing his application filed u/s 258 of Cr.P.C. filed by him praying to stop further proceedings in the said case It is the case of the petitioner that the respondent-complainant had filed a complaint before the 9th Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore City, alleging that he has committed offence u/s 138 and 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, inasmuch as the petitioner had issued a cheque bearing No. 515270 dated 01.12.1997 for a sum of 25,000/- drawn on State Bank of India. Ulsoor Branch, Bangalore. The said cheque when presented, came to be dishonoured and returned to him with an endorsement showing the account having been closed. Thereafter the respondent is alleged to have issued legal notice and as the same was not complied, he filed the private complaint, which thereafter on following the procedure under the code by the trial magistrate was registered as CC No. 20085/1998. Ultimately, the said case stood transferred to the XXth Additional CMM, Bangalore City and during the pendency of the said case, the petitioner filed an application u/s 258 of Cr.P.C. on 02.04.2011 praying to stop all further proceedings in the said case and to pass an order of acquittal.

It was contended in the said application that the accused had preferred Crl. P. No. 3044/1998 on the file of this court challenging the proceedings in CC No. 8153/1998 and also proceedings in CC No. 20085/1998 on the file of the 9th Additional CMM, Bangalore City, which is presently on the file of the 20th Additional CMM, Bangalore. It was contended, by order dated 18.01.1999 this court was pleased to quash the proceedings impugned in Crl.P. No. 3044/1998 holding that the proceedings were abuse of process of law. It was further contended, unfortunately by inadvertence neither of the parties brought the same to the notice of the court and the proceedings are going on unnecessarily, despite this court having quashed the proceedings wide order dated 18.01.1999 in Crl. P. No. 3044/98. Therefore it was prayed to stop all further proceedings and pass an order of acquittal.

The learned trial Magistrate, thereafter on hearing the counsel for the petitioner and on going through the records before him came to the conclusion that this court in Crl. P. No. 3044/1998 has not quashed the proceedings in C.C. No. 20085/1998 and therefore the application filed by the petitioner requesting for stopping all further proceedings does not deserve any merit and accordingly by his order dated 26.12.2011 dismissed the same imposing a cost of 500/-.

It is that order that has been assailed by the petitioner in this petition.

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner while fairly admitting that the proceedings in C.C. No. 20085/1998 had not been quashed by this court in Crl. P. No. 3044/1998 submitted that having regard to the long pendency of the said case since the year 1998. having regard to the offence alleged and the punishment provided for, there was no reason for the learned Magistrate to reject the application and therefore the impugned order rejecting the application be set aside and all further proceedings in C.C. No. 20085/1998 be stopped and the petitioner be acquitted in the said case A perusal of the impugned order discloses that this court in Crl. P. No. 3044/1998 had not quashed the proceedings that had been initiated by the respondent in CC No. 20085/1998. Learned counsel for the petitioner also did not dispute the same before this court. It is brought to the notice of the court that after this court disposed of the Cr. P. No. 3044/1998 on 18.01.99 the proceedings continued before the learned Magistrate. As on today, the case is set down for defence evidence of the accused. The learned counsel submitted that at his instance, a request was made to take up the matter and dispose of at an early date, but despite the same, for the reasons best known, the case could not be concluded. Thereafter he has filed the application only on 02.04.2011 nearly about 13 years after the case came to be instituted and about 12 years after the disposal of Crl. P. No. 3044/1998 by this court. The petitioner was in the know how of the proceedings. He has appeared before the Magistrate and has prosecuted the proceedings According to the counsel for the petitioner the said case is set down for the defence evidence. In that view of the matter, it is very difficult to accept the contention of the learned counsel that all further proceedings are to be stopped having regard to the period from which it has been initiated. As already pointed out, as the case is now posted for defence evidence of the accused having regard to his conduct, in having prosecuted the proceedings till such stage it goes to show that he is acquiesced of the proceedings and as such, I do not find any infirmity or illegality in the order of the Magistrate calling for interference. Apart from the same, there is no merit in the petition. Accordingly it is dismissed.