NATIONAL STEEL Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the arguments of petitioners' counsel and the HCGP for respondent No.1 State. Though the respondent No.2 is served with notice, he did not choose to appear in person or engage the counsel .

(2.) Though this matter is listed today for admission, the same is taken up for final disposal with consent on both sides.

(3.) The main contention of the petitioners is that the petitioner No.1 is the company registered under the Companies Act, 1956. The respondent No.2 herein offered to supply 2500 M.T. of iron ore for Rs.30,00,000.00 and received the said amount through cheque bearing No.805082 drawn on State Bank of India, Indore branch. The said cheque is encashed and the amount of Rs.30,00,000.00 is debited into his account on 27.6.2005. However respondent No.2 came back and expressed his inability to supply iron ore as agreed and agrees to refund the amount and accordingly he paid Rs.10,00,000.00 by demand draft and Rs.20,00,000.00 by another demand draft. Suppressing the above material facts he filed a private complaint falsely alleging that the petitioners have received Rs.30,00,000.00 as deposit have not paid interest for the said amount. The trial Court took cognizance and issued summons in C.C.No.2503/2008 and subsequently the matter was settled before the Lok Adalat and the petitioners were acquitted on the ground that the matter was settled out of Court. However the respondent No.2 approached this Court on the alleged ground that he was forced to sign the compromise petition. This Court set aside the order passed by the trial Court and remanded the matter for fresh consideration without notice to the petitioners. After remand, the trial Court resumed the proceedings. The petitioners application seeking exemption from personal appearance was rejected and NBW was issued and in the meantime respondent No.2 had also filed O.S.No.43/2008 against the petitioners herein for recovery of Rs.51,20,000.00 with interest at 24% p.a. The same was decreed after contest and the petitioners herein have filed RFA No.100260/2015 and obtained the stay. Since the criminal proceedings amounted to causing abuse of Court, the petitioners have approached this Court by filing Crl .P.No.8815/2014 and obtained an interim order of stay. Later the criminal petition was disposed of granting liberty to avail statutory remedy under section 397 of Crimial P.C. Accordingly the petitioners have field Crl .R.P.No.5097/2016 along with application seeking condonation of delay and stay before the III Addl . District and Sessions Court, Ballari, sitting at Hosapete. The Revisional Court without considering the material in the right perspective, dismissed the criminal revision petition. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners have preferred this petition. Respondent No.2 with a mala fide intention has dragged a civil matter into criminal Courts interalia to wreak harassment against the petitioners in order to pressurize them for wrongful gain. Respondent No.2 has also instituted multiple proceedings on the same cause of action and the same was evident that in order to harass the petitioners for wrongful gain, has filed the complaint and the Court below erred in taking cognizance and issuing summons to the petitioners.