V.V. VENKATESHAN Vs. LAKSHMI SAIRAM TRADERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner, who is an accused facing charge for an offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act has brought in question the legality of the order passed on 17.7.2014 by the learned II Addl. Civil Judge and J.M.F.C., Chikmagalur, directing issuance of NBW to the petitioner to secure his presence.

(2.) LEARNED counsel assertively contends that the order passed by the Magistrate issuing NBW is wholly illegal and therefore, it is vitiated. He gains citational support to his contentions in the case of Inder Mohan Goswami vs. State of Uttaranchal reported in : AIR 2008 SC 251, where the Apex Court taking note of the prosecution for offences under Sections 420, 120B and 467 of IPC against the vendor of the property, opined that the criminal prosecution shall not be used as an instrument of harassment or for seeking private vendentta or with an ulterior motive to pressurize accused and taking note of the proceedings before the trial court, whereby a coercive process of issuance of NBW is issued has observed thus:

(3.) THE Apex Court, summarizing such proposition undoubtedly has considered the frivolous nature of criminal prosecution that was been initiated and ultimately quashed. As could be seen from the conspectus of the provisions of Cr P.C., the law prescribes for issuance of NBW, when the accused, after service of summons or otherwise has failed to appear.