: 1 :

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 1^ST DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2021

BEFORE

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE K.SOMASHEKAR

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 209 OF 2017

BETWEEN

Sri. Umesha Pai

S/o Late Raghunath Pai

Aged about 76 years

Resident of Anantha Darshana

PFC Road, Kumbla – 5671 321

Kasaragod District

Kerala State.

... Petitioner

(By Sri. N. Ravindranath Kamath, Advocate)

AND

M/s Maharashtra Apex Corporation Limited

Registered Officer

Syndicate Office

Manipal – 576 104

Represented by its Prl. Officer and

GPA Holder of the company –

Smt. Sukritha Bhaskar Jattan

W/o Bhaskar Jattan.

... Respondent

(By Sri. Pundikai Ishwar Bhat - Advocate)

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of

the Code of Criminal Procedure, praying to quash the

order dated 20.09.2016 made in C.C.No.647/2010 on the

: 2 :

file of III-Addl. Civil Judge (Jr. Dn.,) and JMFC, Udupi. In

the alternative, direct the III-Addl. Civil Judge (Jr. Dn.,)

and JMFC, Udupi in C.C.No.647/2010 to grant time till

30.06.2017 to the petitioner to settle the matter with the

respondent and close the dispute amicably.

This Criminal Petition coming on for Orders, this

day, the court made the following:

O R D E R

None appear for the petitioner either through video

conference or present before the Court physically. But Sri

Pundikai Ishwar Bhat, learned counsel for the respondent

appears through video conference.

2. This petition is filed seeking to quash the order

dated 20.09.2016 in C.C.No.647/2010 passed by the III

Addl.Civil Judge (Jr.Dn) and JMFC, Udupi and in the

alternative direct the aforesaid court to grant time till

30.06.2017 to the petitioner to settle the matter with the

respondent and close the dispute amicably.

3. Respondent/complainant had filed a private

complaint

under

Section

200

of

Cr.P.C.

in

PCR

No.62/2010 for the offence punishable under Section 138

of the N.I.Act after following the requisite conditions as

: 3 :

stated in the provision itself. Subsequent to registration

of the private complaint by the complainant, the Judicial

Magistrate

having

jurisdiction

after

perusing

the

averments made in the complaint and so also, the

materials placed by the complainant, prima-facie being

satisfied with the same, took cognizance of the offence and

registered the complaint in PCR No.62/2010. On perusal

of the sworn statement of PW.1 and so also, evidence

which facilitated by the complainant, the court below

ordered to register the criminal case against the accused

for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the

N.I.Act and issued summons to the accused through

RPAD. The same reveals in the order sheet maintained by

the court below. Subsequently, on 20.09.2016 NBW came

to be issued against accused, if PF is paid. The said order

is under challenge in this petition by urging various

grounds.

4. It is relevant to refer the private complaint filed by

the complainant against the accused by following the

requisite conditions which is stated in the provision itself

relating to proceed in further even as under Section 142 of

: 4 :

the N.I.Act in respect of taking cognizance. However, the

criminal prosecution for the offence under Section 138 of

the N.I.Act, initially it should be treated as civil in nature

and subsequent to be proceeded by giving opportunity to

both the complainant and accused and on appreciation of

the evidence and also documents which facilitated if,

prima-facie

satisfied

and

the

evidence

has

been

worthwhile, then the Court having the domain shall deal

with the matter and in case of conviction under Section

138 N.I.Act it shall be automatically termed as criminal in

nature.

5. In the meanwhile, learned counsel for the

petitioner – Sri N.Ravindranath Kamath, is present

physically

before

the

Court

and

submits

that

petitioner/accused is no more. The submissio