IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 08Th DAY OP AUGUST 201 1 BE F0 R F THE HON’BLE MR.JL T STICE BV,PJNTO CRIMINAL PETITION No. 1O5J2O11 Between: Sri, S.M.Mrutvunjava, Age: E2 years, Occupation: Employee in K.S.R.T.C., R / o. Hagarihommanahalli. Post. and Taluk, District: Bellarv. Petitioner (By Shri Code Nagaraj, Advocate) And: Sri. Basavaraj. S/o. Shivappa Shedad, Age: 49 years. Occupation: Employee in K.SR.T.C.. R/ o. Mundargi Post and Tc 1 .. District: Gadag. Respondent (By Shni H.N.Gularaddi, Ad\ocae( This criminal petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking to quash hc proceedings of Cnimmai Case No.70/2010 (Prtvaic Complaint No. 10/2009) on the file of the Civil Judge (Junior Division) and 3M. PC.. Mundargi, and pass am appropriate orders. This criminal petition coming on for admission this day. the Court made the fol1oing: ORDER This petition is filed seeking to quash the proceedings in Criminal Case No.70,2010 on the file of Civil Judge, Junior Division and J.M.F.C.. Mundargi. The respondent in this case has filed a complaint under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on 18.08.2009. alleging that the petitioner herein has issued a cheque for Rs.3.00.000/- dated 20.03.2009 and the cheque when presented as dishonoured br insufficient funds and when a notice was issued to him. the petitioner has not replied the said notice and has not paid the cheque amount. Hence, the complaint came to be filed. The petitioner appeared before the Court and offered suret on 15.04.2010. On 11.05.2010. he filed an applkation tinder Settion 203 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to disirtiss tlit. complaint, accompan3 ing uith affidavit stating that the case is not maintainable and that the same is liablc to be dismissed. The learned Magistrate b3 order dated p :3: 18.08.2010, dismissed the said application in a detailed order. Thereafter, on the very next day, the petitioner filed another application under Section 203 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, praying to dismiss the complaint by naming the said application as “Second application on small cause of action under Section 203 of the Code of Criminal Procedure”. Again the matter went for filing counter and hearing and the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner did not appear before the Court below. The learned Magistrate after giving sufficient opportunities to the petitioner’s counsel, took the matter as heard and passed the order on 02.12.2011, by dismissing the application on the same grounds, as the one which was dismissed on an earlier occasion. The petitioner has come before this Court challenging the said order. 2. It is to be noted that filing an application under Section 203 of the Code of Criminal Procedure stating that there is no cause of action is unknown to the criminal trial. The offence under Section 138 of the 4 Negotiable Instruments Act is triable as a summons case and the petitioner has dragged on the proceedings for almost one year four months from 10.05.2010. till now een ithout unsering the plea. 3. Heard Shri Gode Nagaraj. learned (ounsel appearing for the petitioner. On giting anxious considerations to the submissions made b the learned counsel and also going through the following rulings: bj) 2002 5CC 9 415, 2001 AIR (SCW) 0 2307, 2000(TLS)33246. Supreme Court of India (Shaktl Travel and Tours vs. State ofBlhafl. ii) 2003-ALWC 1-612. 2002 -SCC 7-655, 2002 (1L8J37271. Supreme Court of India (Katta Szijatha vs. Fertilizers and Chemicals Travancore Limited). iii; 20Gb SKCCRIR 0 b87, 2004• CTC’ 4 317. 2004 (‘1 LS)39)6h. Supreme Court ol India jMonaben Ketanbhal Shah vs. State of GuJarat). iv) 1998 CIVCC 3-202. 1998 AIR (SC)0• 03043, 1998 (TLS) 17094. Supreme Court of India (Sadanandan Bhadran vs. Madhavan SuntUcumar). It is seen that the above nilins are not applicable to the facts of the present cast . I cifli unable to understand as to under which provision the said application is filed and it is seen that only to protract the proceedings. such an application has been filed before the Magistraic twice and in the mean time, the valuable time of the Court has been wasted. It is to be noted that on 16.08.20 10. the Magistrate has noted that the counsel for the petitioner has not appeared for arguing tnt application, which makes the purpose clear. After gi ing a careful consideration to the submissions made, 1 do not find any grounds to interfere with the order passed b’ the learned Magistrate and accordingly thi’ petit in i is dismissed. In the ordinan course. a citizen approaching a higher Court should not be penalised. since he is seeking for establishment of right a’.ailable to him and fight for justice. Howner. in this case it is apparent that the process of law is abused by the A :‘ petitioner in a summons ease. wherein lie is anqwerable for the cheque amount of Rs.3.O0,000, . he has successfulh protracted the asc for one ear. Hem e. it is directcd that the petitiotic r shall deposit the amount equi alent. to G” per annum of the cheque amount front 10.05.2011 till date i.e.. in all a sum of Rs.24,000 1 on the next date of the appearance before the trial Court. In the event, the petitioner succeeds the said some shall be returned to him. In the event, the complainant succeeds the amount which is clire ted to he deposited hereunder shall be paid en er to the complatnan In addition to the compensation ordered by the tnal (‘our The learned Magistrate is directed to dispose of the matter within six months from the date of this order without being influenced by the observations nt.iilt herein. If the petitioner does not cooperate with the proceedings of the Court. it is reminded him to that lw has the powei to detain the petitioner in custody and proceed with the matter. If the complainant does not fr upprar. he has porr to dismiss thy petition or at cluit the accused as the case ma he. With these obsenitions. the matter is clispnse.I •a. 3d!- JUDGE Rsh