PRATAP Vs. D.K.SARAOGI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Learned counsel Sri Nischal Dev.B.R. for petitioner is present before the Court physically and secured the services of learned Senior Counsel Sri Kiran S.Javali. Whereas learned counsel Sri Gaurav.C.G. for respondent is present before the Court physically and represents Sri Mahesh A.S. who is on record. In this matter challenging the cognizance taken by the Court below in C.C.No.2160/2018 relating to the offence under Sec. 138 of the N.I.Act. Criminal prosecution has been initiated by the complainant who is a gravamen of incident narrated in the complaint relating to the offence by following the requisite condition of Sec. 138 of N.I.Act. The Court below vide order dtd. 24/3/2021 has issued Fine Levy Warrant (for short 'FLW') against the petitioner herein namely - Pratap who is arraigned as accused No.6 in the aforesaid case relating to the offence under Sec. 138 of the N.I.Act in respect of cheque bouncing case and this case has been initiated against accused Nos.4, 5 and 7 wherein they were deleted by the respondent / complainant. The cheque in question has been involved and this petitioner is arraigned as accused No.6. The Court below has maintained order sheet in C.C.No.2160/2018 relating to the case in P.C.R.No.435/2018, the criminal law has been initiated against the accused for the aforesaid offences which reflected therein.

(2.) In a given peculiar facts and circumstances of this matter, it is deemed appropriate to refer the order passed by this Court on 22/2/2021. Learned counsel Sri Alwyin Sebastian for petitioners appearing through video conference submitted that the petitioners do not incline to persuade with this matter and consequently, sought for withdrawal of the petition. Sri Anand Muttalli, learned counsel for the respondent was physically present before the Court. Keeping in view the submission made by counsel for the petitioner, the petition came to be dismissed as withdrawn and counsel for the petitioners was permitted to file a memo to that effect. In view of dismissal of the petition as withdrawn, I.A.1/2018 was also dismissed.

(3.) However, learned Senior counsel for petitioner / accused No.6 submits that consequence upon seeking withdrawal of the petition that the Court below in C.C.No.2160/2018 vide order dtd. 24/3/2021 issued FLW against the petitioner / accused No.6 and that FLW is in force against the petitioner being arraigned as accused No.6. But however, it is relevant to observe that seeking recalling of FLW and even entertaining the application filed by the accused, it is the domain vested with the trial Court where the case is pending. Therefore, this petition does not survive for consideration for the relief as sought for and specifically recalling FLW which is in force against the petitioner / accused No.1.