IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 7t1 DAY OF MARCH 2011 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE V. JAGANNATHAN CRL.P.NO.7708/2010 K. RAMAPPA S/O THEKAPPA, 45 YEARS 0CC: BUSINESS MINERALS, MINERS & TRADERS I CROSS, VIDYANAGAR AIRPORT ROAD BELLARY PETITIONER (By Sri. V P KULKARNI, ADV.) AND GURURAJENDRA MINERALS TRADING COMPANY REP. BY MAJOJ KUMAR JAIN S/0 BHAWAR LAL JAIN AGE: 40 YEARS SATHYANARANA NILAYA 100 BED HOSPITAL ROAD HOSPET, BELLARY RESPONDENT (By Sri. GODE NAGARAJ, ADV.) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.P.C. SEEKING TO QUASH THE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.35/20l0 (P.C.NO.514/2009) ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN.) & JMFC, HOSPET. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THiS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: ORDER Heard both sides in respect of the petition filed. 2. The petitioner is accused in the Trial Court in respect of the case under section 138 of the N.I.Act. The Trial Court based on the complaint lodged by the respondent-complainant, issued summons to the petitioner and thereafter, on his failure to appear, the Trial Court issued N.B.W against the petitioner. It is this order that has led the petitioner to approach this court seeking quashing of the proceedings itself. 3. It is seen from the order sheet of this court that, on 9.11.10, this court had directed the petitioner to deposit Rs.2 crores within seven days and no deposit was made by the petitioner and accordingly the petition k was dismissed for non prosecution on 1.12.2010. Thereafter, the petitioner deposited before this court Rs.50 lakhs each in two cases and again the matter was called on 3.3. ii when submission made by the respondent’s counsel was that the balance amount was not deposited by the petitioner. 4. Now submission made by the petitioner’s counsel is that, the petitioner is ready to deposit Rs.2 crores before the Trial Court and therefore the matter be disposed of finally. 5. On the other hand, submission of respondent’s counsel is that, though this court had directed the petitioner to deposit Rs.2 crores before this court, only Rs. 1 crore has been deposited and balance is &i.d to be deposited and moreover, the Trial Court had issued warrant against the petitioner and for getting the said warrant recalled, the petitioner has 4 come up before this court by way of this petition seeking for quashing of the entire proceedings. 5. Having thus heard both sides and the petitioner s counsel submitting that the petitioner 1a aerr deposit the balance amount before the Trial Court, in my view, the matter can be disposed of by directing the petitioner and the respondent to go before the Trial Court and thereafter the Trial Court shall consider the prayer of the petitioner for depositing the balance amount and thereafter the court shall proceed in accordance with law. The petitioner is also at liberty to move the Trial Court for recalling of warrant. 6. The amount deposited before this court by way of demand draft, if not enchased, be kept in fixed deposit in a nationalised bank for 45 days to be renewed thereafterwards periodically. The deposit shall be transferred to the Trial Court if not already transferred and the Trial Court shall deal with the deposit as mentioned above. Petition stands disposed of accordingly. Sd! 3UDGE Dvr: