BADEKIL VENKATARAMANA BHAT Vs. HALASYA RAMANATHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WHEN this matter is called, learned counsel for the petitioner sought for stay to be extended. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent strongly opposed further extension of stay on the ground that the matter is posted for evidence before the trial court and that part, the earlier petitions filed by the very same petitioner before this court have been dismissed and therefore the question of stay being extended does not arise. Having heard thus, this petition is disposed of finally.

(2.) LEARNED counsel Sri. Keshava Murthy for the petitioner submits that the court has to hear the petitioner in respect of the application filed u/s 254(1) of Cr.P.C. in respect of not giving the petitioner an opportunity to produce documents. At the same time, petitioner's counsel also submits that, the issuance of cheque by the petitioner is not in dispute, but however, cheque was issued not towards any legal liability but to help the complainant to secure the loan from other persons for other purposes. Therefore, it is submitted that stay be extended and in this regard it is also argued that the matter is one of civil in nature and does not attract any criminal liability and reliance is placed in this connection on a ruling of this court reported in 2012(2) AIR Kar R 649.

(3.) SUBSEQUENTLY, the petitioner moved another petiton before this court u/s 482 of Cr.P.C. and that was also dismissed by this court on 12.4.2012 with the following observations: