Crl.P.No.7182/2018

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 06^TH DAY OF APRIL 2021

BEFORE

THE HON9BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S.MUDAGAL

CRIMINAL PETITION No.7182/2018

BETWEEN:

SMT SHASHIKALA

W/O N.V. PRAKASH

NOW AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS

R/AT NO.104, BUILDING-2

KHB COLONY, KENGERI UPANAGARA

BENGALURU-560 060

& PETITIONER

(BY SRI.J.S.HALASHETTI, ADVOCATE)

AND:

SMT DEEPA H

W/O VIDHYADHAR

NOW AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS

PREVIOUSLY RESIDING AT

NO.33, KEMPANNA ROAD

NEAR MARAMMA TEMPLE

DODDAMAVALLI

BENGALURU-560 004

PRESENTLY RESIDING AT:

7201, YORK AVE SASS APJ

1320, EDINA, MN 55435

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

& RESPONDENT

(BY SRI.S. BALAKRISHNAN, ADV.)

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER

SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE

ORDER DATED 19.07.2018 PASSED BY THE LVI

R

Crl.P.No.7182/2018

2

ADDITIONAL

C.M.M.,

BENGALURU

IN

C.C.NO.19587/2016, WHICH IS PRODUCED HEREWITH

AS ANNEXURE-A.

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR

FURTHER HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE

FOLLOWING:

O R D E R

<Whether the order of the Trial Court granting

permanent

exemption

to

the

respondent

from

appearance before the Court in C.C.No.19587/2016

amounts to abuse of the process of the Court?= is the

question involved in this case.

2.

On the basis of the complaint filed by the

petitioner under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. to prosecute

the respondent for the offences punishable under

Sections 419, 420 and 426 of IPC, the Trial Court

took

cognizance

and

registered

the

case

in

C.C.No.19587/2016.

3.

It was alleged that the respondent availed

loan of Rs.25,00,000/ from the petitioner for her

education and towards repayment of the said loan,

she issued several cheques. It was further alleged

Crl.P.No.7182/2018

3

that

amongst

them,

cheque

No.000022

dated

03.03.2016 for Rs.2,50,000/- was drawn on H.D.F.C.

Bank, Banashankari Branch, Bengaluru.

4.

When presented, the said cheque was

returned

dishonoured

with

the

endorsement

<drawer9s signature differs=. The petitioner alleged

that having availed the loan, to cheat her the

respondent has deliberately signed in different mode

than her regular signature leading to the dishonour

of the cheque.

5.

The Trial Court could not secure the

respondent

on

summons,

therefore

issued

non-bailable warrant against her. On 31.03.2018, an

advocate filed memorandum of appearance before the

Trial Court for respondent along with the application

under Section 205 of Cr.P.C., seeking permanent

exemption from appearance in the case on the

ground that she is employed in USA and traveling

from USA to Bengaluru causes problems to her

financially and employment wise.

Crl.P.No.7182/2018

4

6.

The petitioner filed statement of objections

and opposed the said application. The Trial Court, by

the impugned order dated 19.07.2018 allowed the

said application relying on the judgment of the

Hon9ble Supreme Court in Usha. K. Pillai vs.

V.S.Raji.K. [AIR 1993 SC 2090] and accepting the

grounds stated by the respondents.

7.

Sri. J.S.Halashetti, learned counsel for the

petitioner seeks to assail the impugned order of the

Trial Court on the ground that the judgment relied by

the Trial Court was rendered with regard to the

examination of the accused under Section 313 of

Cr.P.C., and there also it was held that the such

exemption can be granted only in the summons

cases. He further submits that the Trial Court failed

to note that the respondent without filing any

application for recalling the non-bailable warrant,

without seeking bail sought omnibus exemption and

that was outrightly granted by the Trial Court.

Crl.P.No.7182/2018

5

8.

Per contra, Sri. S.Balakrishnan learned

counsel appearing for the respondent submits that

Section 205 of Cr.P.C., applies to the warrant cases

also. He further submits that because of her stay in

foreign country, respondent was not able to appear

before the Trial C