1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 2nd DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2011 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND BYRAREDDY CRIMINAL PETITION No.4133/2007 BETWEEN: 1. Smt. Rudramma W/o. Sri. Rudra Gouda Ramalingannanavar, 68 yrs. R/o. Vageesh Nagar 6th Cross, Ranebennur Haven Dist. 2. Smt. Pushpa W/o. Sri. Karibasappa Rama Lingannanavar, 33 yrs. R/o. Vageesh Nagar 6th Cross, Ranebennur Haven Dist. 3. Smt. Bhagyalakshmi R. Patil (Smt. Bhagya Jyothi R. Patil) W/o. Sri Rudra Gouda Ramalingannanavar, 34 yrs. R/o. Biligi village Bagalkot Tq. & Dist. 4. Sri. Banna Gouda (Sri. Karibasappa) S/. Rudra Gouda Rama Lingannanavar R/o. Vageesh Nagar 6th Cross, Ranebennur Haven Dist. PETITIONERS (By Sri. Patil M. H., Adv.) AND: M/s. Siddeshwara Traders General Merchants & Commission Agents Rep. by its partner Sri. Manjunatha Shankarappa Gouda Shivannanavar, 26 yrs. APMC Yard, Ranebennur Haven Dist. .RESPONDENT (By Sri. G. K. Hiregouder, Adv.) This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C praying to quash the proceedings initiated against the petitioners herein in C.C.No.501/2006 (PC 113/2006), on the file of the Addi. Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) & II Addl. JMFC, Ranebennur against the petitioners herein and quash the order dt.18.05.2006 taking cognizance and issuing the summons to the petitioners herein. This Petition coming on for hearing this day, the Court made the following: ORDER Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners. 2. The petitioners are the respondents in a private complaint filed under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. 3. It is alleged that the petitioners herein and two others had committed the offence punishable under the said section. Whereas, it is the case of the petitioners that they were not at all concerned with the transaction, since they are not the partners of one Harihareswara Trading Company, which had in fact issued the cheque in question as per the complaint. It is the case of the complainant that there is no evidence available on record to indicate that the petitioners have anything to do with the said entity and it is further alleged that the petitioners are made accused out of sheer spite by the complainant and the petitioner seeks to draw attention to the complaint, the legal notice as well as the reply and the sworn statement of the complainant to demonstrate this aspect 4 of the matter. This Court had, in the first instance, issued an order of stay and the matter was later admitted. The lower Court records have been called for. 4. The learned Counsel for the petitioner was heard at length. 5. Assuming that there is no case made out against the petitioners and the complaint would have to be dismissed in limine against the petitioners, it is open for the petitioner to demonstrate the same before the very Magistrate before whom the case is pending. It is not proper for this Court to sift the evidence as it were and take on the role of the Magistrate, when it is open for the petitioner to demonstrate that either they are to be discharged under Section 239 or further proceedings against them are required to be stopped, in the facts and circumstances of the case. Such a remedy being available to the petitioner before the very Magistrate, it is out of place for this court to exercise power under Section 482 to interfere with the pending proceedings. 6. Accordingly, the interim stay granted earlier stands vacated. The petition is disposed of without prejudice to the claim of the petitioners that there is no case, whatsoever made out against the petitioners. Sd/ JUDGE gab/ -