Karnataka High Court
Sri S Jagadeesh vs M/S Tumcos Ltd on 28 June, 2022
Bench: M.Nagaprasanna
-1-
CRL.P No. 8036 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF JUNE, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 8036 OF 2021
BETWEEN:
1. SRI S.JAGADEESH
S/O V.S.SHVALINGAPPA
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,
AGRICULTURIST AND BUSINESSMAN
VADANAHAL COMMISSION AGENCIES
R/O CHIKKULIKERE VILLAGE
CHANNAGIRI TALUK
DAVANAGERE DISTRICT
CHANNAGIRI - 577 213.
2. SRI B.K.PRABHU SHANKARAPPA
S/O B.S.KALLESHWARAPPA
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS.
3. SRI B.K.MANJUNATH
Digitally S/O B.S.KALLESHWARAPPA
signed by
PADMAVATHI AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS.
BK
Location:
High Court of
Karnataka PETITIONER NO.2 AND 3 ARE
R/O BILLAHALLI VILLAGE
CHANNAGIRI TALUK
DAVANAGERE DISRICT
CHANNAGIRI - 577 213.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. SIDDANOORU VISHWANATHA., ADVOCATE)
-2-
CRL.P No. 8036 of 2021
AND:
M/S TUMCOS LTD.,
CHANNAGIRI
REP. BY ITS MD SRI MADHU
S/O PUTTAPPA
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS
R/O CHANNAGIRI TOWN AND TALUK
DAVANAGERE DISTRICT
CHANNAGIRI - 577 213.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI DEVIPRASAD SHETTY., ADVOCATE)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482
OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO QUASH THE PROCEEDINGS IN
C.C.NO.84/2019 ON THE FILE OF THE HONBLE PRINCIPAL
CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, CHANNAGIRI, IN PURSUANT TO THE
PCR NO.34/2018 AND ALL THE SUBSEQUENT PROCEEDINGS
THEREIN TO AWARD COST OF THIS PETITION.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The petitioners are before this Court calling in
question proceedings in C.C.No.84/2019, pending before
the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Channagiri, arising out
of P.C.R.No.34/2018.
CRL.P No. 8036 of 2021
2. Heard Sri Siddanooru Vishwanatha, learned
counsel for the petitioners and Sri Deviprasad Shetty,
learned counsel for the respondent.
3. Brief facts of the case leading to the filing of the
petition as borne out from the pleadings are as follows:
A transaction between the petitioners and the
respondent - complainant results in a proceedings being
instituted by the complainant under Section 138 of the
N.I.Act in PCR.No.34/2018. The concerned Court by its
order dated 12.07.2019, dismissed the complaint for non-
prosecution, on the score that the steps had not been
taken. It transpires that the complainant files an
application for recalling the order dated 12.07.2019.
Accepting the application, the concerned Court by its order
dated 15.07.2019, recalled the order of dismissal and
continues with the proceedings that were pending before
it. The proceedings have gone on since then. The
petitioner has now knocked the doors of this Court calling
in question the entire proceedings in the subject petition.
CRL.P No. 8036 of 2021
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that
the Court having dismissed the complaint for its non-
prosecution, could not have recalled the dismissal order on
15.07.2019, as it does not have power to do so.
5. Learned counsel for the respondent would submit
that the proceedings have gone on for a long time after
12.07.2019 and the petitioner has filed the petition in the
year 2021, calling in question those proceedings and
would seek dismissal of the petition.
6. I have given my anxious consideration to the
submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for
both the parties and perused the material on record.
7. The afore-narrated facts are not in dispute. The
issue lies on the narrow compass where the proceedings
are terminated by the concerned Court by its order dated
12.07.2019 and the very Court, which had terminated the
proceedings for non-prosecution, recalls the order on
15.07.2019 and conduct further proceedings. On the face
of it, is without authority of law.
CRL.P No. 8036 of 2021
8. In the light of Section 362 of Cr.P.C., which bars
the Court to recall it's order which is the effect of
termination of the proceedings before it. Section 362 of
Cr.P.C., reads as follows:
"362. Court not to after judgement. Save
as otherwise provided by this Code or by any
other law for the time being in force, no Court,
when it has signed its judgment or final order
disposing of a case, shall alter or review the
same except to correct a clerical or arithmetical
error."
Therefore, the very order dated 15.07.2019, is a nullity in
the eye of law and all further proceedings taken thereto by
the concerned Court stands on the same footing as nullity
in law.
9. On this short ground, that the Court recalling its
order dated 12.07.2019 and conducting further
proceedings, after recalling the order by its order dated
15.07.2019, will have to be quashed.
CRL.P No. 8036 of 2021
10. The submission of the learned counsel for the
respondent that the proceedings have gone on for a long
time after the said date i.e., 15.07.2019, is of no avail as
that the order dated 15.07.2019, recalling its own order is
without jurisdiction and consequentially rendered nullity in
law.
11. For the aforesaid reasons, the following:
ORDER
i. The Criminal Petition is allowed.
ii. The order dated 15.07.2019 recalling the order
data 12.07.2019 stands quashed.
iii. The order dated 12.07.2019, dismissing the
petition stands quashed and the matter is
remitted back to the hands of the concerned
Court to conduct proceedings afresh, from the
stage at which the petition stood dismissed for
its non-prosecution.
CRL.P No. 8036 of 2021
iv. In the light of the transaction being of the year
2019, the Court shall endeavour to conclude
the proceedings as expeditiously as possible.
Sd/-
JUDGE
NVJ
