IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA CIRCIJIT BENCH AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 24 DAY OP MAY 201 1 B E F 0 R E THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE A.S.PACHHAPURE CRIMINAL PETIT1CN Nos.10f73 ndjQ,74201l Crl.P.No.10573/201 I BETWEEN: 1< r is h n a S/o. Chhavapati Huggi. Age: 59. (3cc’: Nil, Ri. Jamakhandi5S730l Dist: Bagalkot. ... PETiTIONER IBv Sri.R.S.Kaclibagil. ADV.j AND: The State by Addi. SPP Circuit Bench. Dharwad RESPONDENTS (By Sri .Anand K. Navalgirnath. HCGP.,) The Criminal Petition is filed U/S. 482 Cr.P.C. seeking to quash the entire proceedings pending in Cr1. Misc. No. I 1.3/2(306 the anncxureB on the file of Pri. Civil Judge &JMPC Court. Jamkhancli. Crl.P.No. 10574’ 2011 BETWEEN: Vi navak S/ o. Dat tatrava Paragaonkar, Age: 46, 0cc: Nil. R/o. Jarnakhandi-587302. Dist: Bagalkot. ... PETITIONER IBy Sri. R.S.Kadibagil .ADV, A N D: The State by Addi. SPP Circuit Beach, Dharwad RESPONDENTS (By Sri.Anand K Nay algimath, HCGP,,) The Criminal Petition is filed U/S. 482 Cr.P.C. seeking to quash the entire proceedings pending in Cr1. Misc. No. 1 12/2006 the annexureB on the file of Pri. Civil Judge &. JMFC Court. Jamkhandi These petitions coming on for Admission this day, the court made the following: ORDER The petitioners have challenged the initiation of proceedings under Section 446(1 of Cr.P.C. in Crl,Misc, Nos, 112 and 113/2006 by the JMFC Court Jamakhandi, 2. The facts reveal that the petitioners herein are the surety arid accused, in a complaint in CC No.280/2003 registered for the offence under Section 138 N.J Act. After registration of the complaint. the summons were issued. The accused appeared and offered the surety arid he was released on hail. Thereafter. for the reason that accused did 3 not appear before thc court on the given date, non- bailable warrant was issued on 29.12.2006. In pursuance of the non-bailable warrant issued, the accuscd was taken into custody and the learned magistrate forfeited the surety bond and the bond executed by the accused and directed registration of Crl.Misc.112 and 113/2006 for passing orders of penalty. It is the initiation of these proceedings that has been challenged before this court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also the High Court Government Pleader. 4. It is not in dispute that the proceedings initiated under Section 138 of N.I. Act have been compounded and the accused has been acquitted in the said case. Further more, as could be seen from order sheet dated 29.12.2006 which it reads as follows: “Application is filed. Counsels fr accused are called out absent. No representation is made. Already NBW issued against the accused. Hence the 4 accused is taken to J.C. and remanded to jail till 12/01/2007 and B/B of accused and his surety stands forfeited. Register the Cr1. Miscs. For filed” As it could be seen from the decision of this court reported in 1997 Criminal Law Journal 4691 (S.Hiranyappa Vs. State of Karnataka), before forfeiture of the surety bond and recovery of surety amount of the accused, it is necessary to issue show cause notice. No such show cause notice was issued to the petitioner who are the surety and accused in the case registered for the offence under Section 138 of N.I. Act. In the circumstances, the very initiation of proceedings for recovery of penalty are incompetent and cannot be maintained. Hence, I am of the opinion that the order initiating the proceedings in Cr1. Misc. 112 and 113/2006 are illegal and hence they are quashed and the petitions are accordingly disposed of. MiscCr1. 15757 and 15758/20] 1 for stay do not survive for consideration. Hence the V are rcected. Sd/ JUDGE Rm s /