SHAILESH KUMAR Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioners in these two cases have sought for quashing the entire proceedings pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mangalore in CC 81/2008 and to set aside the order passed by the CJM and, also the order in Crl. Rev. 202/2008 in the former case and Crl. Rev.203/2008 in the later case.

(2.) The 2nd respondent filed a complaint before the Ullal police on 11-1-2007 and another complaint dated 29-8-2007 alleging the offences of forgery and cheating under Ss. 406, 409, 420, 467, 468, 471, 477A and 506, IPC. Complaint came to be registered in Crime No. 13/2007 and 224/2007 respectively. Learned Magistrate, on the basis of the report filed by the police, accepted the B Report. Thereafter, the 2nd respondent filed a complaint before the Magistrate who had taken cognizance and issued process. Against the order of the learned Magistrate taking cognizance and issuing process, petitioner moved the Sessions Judge in Rev. 202/2008 before the II Addl, Sessions Judge, Dakshina Kannada, Mangalore. The order of issuance of summons by, the learned Magistrate is dated 19-4-2008. By order dated 5-7-2008, Sessions Judge stayed the impugned order of the learned Magistrate by eight weeks According to the petitioner, it was effective till September, 2008. The stay order was brought to the notice of the learned Magistrate in CC 80/2008 on 9-7-2008 wherein the stage before the. learned Magistrate was awaiting service of summons to the petitioner.

(3.) Grievance of the petitioner is, despite the stay order of the Sessions Judge in revision .which was operative for eight weeks, by that time noting the absence of the petitioner, trial Court issued non-bailable warrant. However, later the trial Court once again on appraising of the fact by the petitioner's counsel struck of the said order from the order sheet and thereafter, matter was adjoined and the revision filed by the petitioner came to be dismissed on 5-9-2008 by confirming the order of the Magistrate ordering to issue summons. Apart from that, petitioner also raised a grounds regarding the matter being, moved by the 2nd respondent before the Company Law Board to transfer the shares in his name making allegation against the, petitioner and others and also in this regard according to the petitioner, he has also filed a suit for injunction against the 2nd respondent to injunct him from such a transfer. Accordingly, petitioners contend, once the B Report has been accepted and when the matter has been taken up by the Company Law Board and when the petitioner moved the civil Court seeking injunction, learned Magistrate ought not have entertained the private complaint and issued summons and it amounts to reviewing the order of acceptance of the B Report which, according to them, is contrary to the ratio laid down in various decisions of this Court and the Apex Court and accordingly, has sought for quashing the issuance of summons.